You are on page 1of 160

Desi gn of Col d- Formed

Steel Pl ai n Channel s



R E S E A R C H R E P O R T R P 0 1 - 2

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 1
R E V I S I O N 2 0 0 6

American Iron and Steel Institute


Commi ttee on Speci fi cati ons
for the Desi gn of Col d- Formed
Steel Structural Members
The material contained herein has been developed by researchers based on their research
findings. The material has also been reviewed by the American Iron and Steel Institute
Committee on Specifications for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. The
Committee acknowledges and is grateful for the contributions of such researchers.
The material herein is for general information only. The information in it should not be
used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any given
application. The publication of the information is not intended as a representation or warranty
on the part of the American Iron and Steel Institute, or of any other person named herein, that
the information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from infringement of
any patent or patents. Anyone making use of the information assumes all liability arising from
such use.





























Copyright 2001 American Iron and Steel Institute
Revised Edition Copyright 2006 American Iron and Steel Institute
1
DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED STEEL PLAIN CHANNELS
FINAL REPORT
By
FANG YIU
PROFESSOR TEOMAN PEKZ, PROJECT DIRECTOR
A PROJECT SPONSORED BY
THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE
Date Submitted 14 February 2001
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
HOLLISTER HALL, ITHACA NY 14853-3501
2
ABSTRACT
Though channels are seemingly simple members, their accurate design
presents special challenges. The topics under study include the behavior of
channels in compression, bending about both principal axes and under the
action of axial load and biaxial bending. The post local-buckling behavior of
thin-walled channels and the inelastic reserve load carrying capacity of thick-
walled channels are considered in the proposed design procedures.
The scope of the research includes plate elements subjected to various
types of stress gradients. Physical test results coupled with extensive finite
element studies are used to formulate design procedures.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Review of Previous Research -- Experimental and Analytical Work
2.1 Beams
2.1.1 Minor Axis Bending
2.1.2 Major Axis Bending
2.2 Columns
2.3 Beam-Columns
2.4 Others
3. Elastic Buckling
3.1 Beams
3.1.1 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Elements in Tension
3.1.2 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Compression
3.1.3 Major Axis Bending
3.2 Columns
4. Ultimate Strength: Finite Element Studies
4.1 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Tension
4.2 Flat-ended and Pin-ended Columns
5. Ultimate Strength: Proposed Procedures
5.1 Beams
5.1.1 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Tension
5.1.2 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Compression
5.1.3 Major Axis Bending
5.2 Flat-ended and Pin-ended Columns
4
6. Ultimate Strength: Experimental Investigation
6.1 Experiments of Laterally Braced Beams--Minor Axis Bending with
Stiffened Element in Tension
6.2 Experiments of Beam-Columns
7. Evaluation of Proposed Ultimate Strength Procedures
7.1 Evaluation of Experimental Results of Beams
7.2 Evaluation of Experimental Results of Columns
7.3 Evaluation of Experimental Results of Beam-Columns
8. Conclusions
Appendices
Appendix A: Imperfection Measurement
Appendix B: Geometric Imperfection Studies
Appendix C: Design Recommendations
Appendix D: Sample Examples
References
5
Figure 1.1 Plain Channel
b2
flange
b1
web
1. INTRODUCTION
Cold-formed steel plain channels shown in Figure1.1 are used in
several applications such as bracing members in racks and tracks in steel
framed housing. This report gives an overview of the design procedures
developed for laterally braced beams, columns and beam-columns of plain
channels. These formulations are based on experimental and finite element
studies. Current design procedures were found to be inaccurate. For
example, the minor axis bending capacity of plain channels is conservatively
predicted by the AISI Specification, particularly when k=0.43 is assumed for
flanges.
The design procedures developed are applicable to cross-sections in
the range of practical sections used in the industry, namely 1 /
1 2
b b . The
recommendations treat members that are made up of elements that may be in
the post-buckling or post yielding range. The design procedures developed
are consistent with AISI Specification for calculating the overall capacity of
plain channels.
6
2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH -- EXPERIMENTAL
AND ANALYTICAL WORK
Available experimental and analytical work on beams, columns and
beam-columns of plain channels are reviewed.
2.1 Beams
2.1.1 Minor Axis Bending
El Mahi and Rhodes' Experiments from UK [1985]-- Minor Axis Bending
with Stiffened Element in Tension
84 tests were performed on plain channel specimens and 17 tee
specimens at University of Strathclyde for the Cold Rolled Sections
Association, and subsequently as part of ECSC research project no.
7210/ SA/ 608. Of these 17 channels and 7 tee tests were undertaken for
exploration purposes. Therefore the results for 67 channels and 10 tees were
reported. The channels were tested as beams under pure moment loading
with the unstiffened elements having their free edges in compression. Table
2.1 shows the basic cross-sectional dimensions. The typical cross section is
presented in Figure 2.1.
An effective width approach was proposed in the post buckling range
along with the use of post yield capacity for thicker elements to determine
failure moment. The proposed effective width equation had a slight
conservatism to take account of imperfections. In addition, Dr. Rhodes
pointed out the slight anomaly in this proposed method.
7
Table 2.1 El Mahi & Rhodes Cross Section Information
t(mm) b1(mm) b2(mm) span(mm) Fy(N/ mm
2
)
1 1.55 49.17 12.38 0 500 270
2 1.56 49.97 25.89 0 500 270
3 1.58 49.65 36.8 0 500 270
4 1.56 52.25 51.56 0 500 270
5 1.18 51.03 13.18 0 500 270
6 1.17 50.8 25.03 0 500 270
7 1.17 51.2 38.59 0 500 270
8 1.18 50.73 51.68 0 500 270
9 1.18 51.44 23.86 13.5 500 270
10 1.18 52.07 23.54 29 500 270
11 1.18 51.44 23.86 46 500 270
12 1.18 52.12 49.53 15.5 500 270
13 1.18 52.38 49.5 29 500 270
14 1.18 52.39 49.58 47.5 500 270
15 1.17 51.15 13.9 0 700 270
16 1.15 52.19 25.59 0 700 270
17 1.17 49.63 40.1 0 700 270
18 1.17 50.39 52.13 0 700 270
19 1.52 51.19 13.21 0 700 270
20 1.57 53.68 25.26 0 700 270
21 1.57 52.41 38.59 0 700 270
22 1.57 51.14 51.29 0 700 270
23 1.59 50 25.4 16 700 270
24 1.62 52.07 24.13 28 700 270
25 1.57 52.07 24.13 46 700 270
26 1.63 51.44 49.53 15 700 270
27 1.62 53.34 48.26 29 700 270
28 1.63 53.34 49.34 45 700 270
29 0.55 51.8 12.5 0 700 270
30 0.55 51.5 25.8 0 700 270
31 0.56 51.5 38.5 0 700 270
32 0.54 52 51 0 700 270
33 0.55 52 23 15 700 270
34 0.56 49.5 23.5 29 700 270
35 0.55 50 23.5 45 700 270
36 0.54 49 40 16 700 270
37 0.55 49.5 49 30 700 270
38 0.55 50 49 44 700 270
39 0.703 50.5 51 0 305 279
8
40 0.71 50.5 38.4 0 305 279
(Continued Table 2.1)
41 0.708 50.8 25.5 0 305 279
42 0.71 50.8 51.5 0 305 279
43 0.71 50.3 50.3 0 305 279
44 0.7 51 25.6 0 305 279
45 0.81 52 26 0 700 184
46 0.81 52.5 33.2 0 700 184
47 0.81 54 41 0 700 184
48 0.815 53.5 45.5 0 700 184
49 0.8 53 51 0 700 184
481 0.815 53.5 45.5 0 700 184
491 0.8 53 51 0 700 184
50 1.2 54.5 26 0 700 262
51 1.2 53 33.5 0 700 262
52 1.205 53.5 46 0 700 262
53 1.21 53.5 41 0 700 262
54 1.2 54 51 0 700 262
55 1.21 54 51 0 700 262
56 0.81 51 40 25 700 184
57 0.805 51 40 35 700 184
58 0.81 50.5 40.5 40 700 184
59 0.8 51 40 46 700 184
60 0.815 51 40 49 700 184
61 0.8 50.5 40 55 700 184
62 0.81 51 40 60 700 184
63 1.2 51 40 35 700 262
64 1.21 50 40.5 40 700 262
65 1.205 5.1 40 46 700 262
66 1.2 5.1 40 53 700 262
67 1.21 50.5 40.5 60 700 262
9
Figure 2.1 El Mahi & Rhodess Cross Section
Enjiky's Experiments from United Kingdom[1985]-- Minor Axis Bending
with Stiffened Element in Tension, Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened
Element in Compression
Plain channel sections in bending (using 0.5m and 1m spans) with their
unstiffened and stiffened components in compression were tested at Oxford
Polytechnic. These channel sections had a range of width to thickness ratios
for compression components 3-92 for unstiffened and 14-184 for stiffened
components. Tables 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 show the basic cross-sectional dimensions
for stiffened element in tension and in compression, respectively. The typical
cross section is presented in Figure 2.2.
Inelastic post-buckling analysis of plain channel sections was carried
out by yield line theory. Recommendations on safety factors, experimental
techniques, and some other issues to UK Specification Design were
suggested.
Table 2.2.1 Enjiky's Cross Section Information
with Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Tension
Specimen Section Size Yield Stress span
Experiment (DxBxt) L Q
Reference mm N/ mm
2
mm mm
M9 30x8x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M10 45x16x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M11 60x24x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M12 75x32x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M13 90x40x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M14 105x48x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M15 120x56x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M16 135x64x1.6 232.5 1000 300
Q1 160x80x1.6 183 1000 300
10
Q2 210x105x1.6 183 1000 300
Q3 240x120x1.6 183 1000 300
Q4 270x135x1.6 183 1000 300
Q5 300x150x1.6 183 1000 300
(Continued Table 2.2.1)
A1 100x50x1.6 230.6 500 200
A2 100x50x1.6 230.6 500 200
A3 100x50x1.6 230.6 500 200
A4 100x50x1.6 230.6 500 200
C1 100x50x1.6 230.6 500 200
C2 100x50x1.6 230.6 500 200
9 30x8x1.6 232.5 500 200
10 45x16x1.6 232.5 500 200
11 60x24x1.6 232.5 500 200
12 75x32x1.6 232.5 500 200
13 90x40x1.6 232.5 500 200
14 105x48x1.6 232.5 500 200
15 120x56x1.6 232.5 500 200
16 135x64x1.6 232.5 500 200
Q6 160x80x1.6 183 500 200
Q7 210x105x1.6 183 500 200
Q8 240x120x1.6 183 500 200
Q9 270x135x1.6 183 500 200
Q10 300x150x1.6 183 500 200
Table 2.2.2 Enjiky's Cross Section Information
with Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Compression
Specimen Section Size Yield Stress span
Experiment (DxBxt) L Q
Reference mm N/ mm2 mm mm
M1 30x8x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M2 45x16x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M3 60x24x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M4 75x32x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M5 90x40x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M6 105x48x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M7 120x56x1.6 232.5 1000 300
M8 135x64x1.6 232.5 1000 300
P1 160x80x1.6 183 1000 300
P2 210x105x1.6 183 1000 300
11
P3 240x120x1.6 183 1000 300
P4 270x135x1.6 183 1000 300
P5 300x150x1.6 183 1000 300
1 30x8x1.6 232.5 500 200
2 45x16x1.6 232.5 500 200
(Continued Table 2.2.2)
3 60x24x1.6 232.5 500 200
4 75x32x1.6 232.5 500 200
5 90x40x1.6 232.5 500 200
6 105x48x1.6 232.5 500 200
7 120x56x1.6 232.5 500 200
8 135x64x1.6 232.5 500 200
P6 160x80x1.6 183 500 200
P7 210x105x1.6 183 500 200
P8 240x120x1.6 183 500 200
P9 270x135x1.6 183 500 200
P10 300x150x1.6 183 500 200
Y1 60x24x1.6 210 1000 300
Y2 75x32x1.6 210 1000 300
Y3 90x40x1.6 210 1000 300
Y4 105x48x1.6 210 1000 300
Y5 120x56x1.6 210 1000 300
Y6 135x64x1.6 210 1000 300
Y7 160x80x1.6 210 1000 300
Y8 210x105x1.6 210 1000 300
Y9 240x120x1.6 210 1000 300
Y10 270x135x1.6 210 1000 300
Y11 300x150x1.6 210 1000 300
Figure 2.2 Enjiky's Cross Section
B
D
12
P. Jayabalan's Experiments from India[1989]-- Minor Axis Bending with
Stiffened Element in Tension, Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element
in Compression
Nine beam tests (using 2m span) were carried out on plain channel
sections at India Institute of Technology Madras with 6 specimens having
unstiffened components in compression and 3 specimens having stiffened
components in compression. Table 2.3 shows the basic cross-sectional
dimensions. The typical cross section is presented in Figure 2.3.
Effective width equation for unstiffened elements in post local
buckling range, considering the effect of imperfection, was suggested.
However, those specimens that did not experience local buckling were
ignored by this work. Moreover, most of the dimensions of specimen cross
sections were not commonly used in industry.
Table 2.3 Jayabalan's Cross Section Information
Specimen Type D(mm) W(mm) T(mm) R(mm)
B1 F 96.3 51.1 1.97 6.5
B2 S 97.4 50.3 1.96 6
B3 F 126.1 52.8 1.98 6.5
B4 S 181.1 53.8 2.01 7
B5 F 184.1 50.2 2.03 7
B6 S 126.5 50.3 2.03 6.5
B7 F 99.9 51.5 5.94 6.5
B8 F 131.1 52.7 5.94 7
B9 F 19 50.7 5.97 7
F stands for the case of maximum compression at free edge and
S stands for the case of maximum compression at supported edge
W
D
Figure 2.3 Jayabalan's Cross Section
13
14
Julie Cohen's Work from US [1987]-- Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened
Element in Tension
An iterative effective width approach was suggested and post-yield
strain reserve capacity was utilized for cross sections of not slender flanges.
But, there were some geometry restrictions for the proposed effective width
equation such as, ; 50 / t H ;
o
45 and 1 1 / W H (H is flange width; W1 is
web width; t is thickness; is the angle between flange and the line
perpendicular to web). Thus, not all experimental data can be evaluated by
this approach.
2.1.2 Major Axis Bending
Reck's Experiments from Cornell University
Four specimens were tested by Reck at Cornell University and
reported by Venkatakrishnan Kalyanaraman in 1976, while only three of them
are available for evaluation. Table 2.4 shows the basic cross-sectional
dimensions. The typical cross-section is shown in Figure 2.4.
Table 2.4 Reck's Cross Section
Reck's Specimen
Bc Bt D t L Fy
(in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) kips
UP-9 1.68 1.671 3.978 0.06 60 42
UP-10 1.22 1.241 4.013 0.035 60 36
UP-11 1.417 1.446 4.005 0.0347 60 36
UP-12 1.616 1.648 4.001 0.0355 60 N/ A
15
Bc
D
Bt
Figure 2.4 Reck's Cross Section
Asko Talja's Experiments from Finland [1990]
Two specimens were bent about the axis of symmetry of the profile.
Plain channels were side by side and the webs were connected together with a
plate. Table 2.5 shows the basic cross-sectional dimensions. The typical
cross-section is shown in Figure 2.5.
Table 2.5 Asko's Cross Section
Name fy t
(mm)
r
(mm)
a
(mm)
b
(mm)
l1
(mm)
l2
(mm)
l3
(mm)
UU1/ MR1 620 6.05 8 121 37 250 750 1250
UU1/ MR2 620 6.05 8 121 37 1250 1750 2150
16
a
b
Figure 2.5 Asko's Cross Section
2.2 Columns
Mulligan & Pekoz's Experiments from USA[1983]--Flat-ended Stub
Column with Uniform Compression
Eleven press-braked stub column tests were carried out on plain
channel sections at Cornell University to study the interaction of local
buckling between plate elements. The column length was determined to be
short enough to preclude the overall buckling modes, but be long enough so
as not to restrict the local buckling behavior. Initial imperfections were
measured. The basic cross-sectional dimensions are presented in Table 2.6.
The typical cross-section is shown in Figure 2.6.
Table 2.6 Mulligan & Pekozs Cross Section Information
Specimen W1(in.) w2(in.) t(in.) OR(in.) L(in.) Fy(ksi)
SC/ 1 60x30 3.230 1.609 0.0484 0.168 9.976 32.79
SC/ 1 90x30 4.609 1.612 0.0478 0.164 10.94 32.79
SC/ 1 120x30 6.102 1.612 0.0472 0.172 8.961 32.79
SC/ 2 120x30 6.117 1.605 0.0482 0.168 16.85 32.79
SC/ 1 40x60 2.051 3.095 0.0480 0.152 15.14 51.62
SC/ 2 40x60 2.095 3.093 0.0481 0.152 15.14 51.62
17
(Continued Table 2.6)
SC/ 1 60x60 3.058 3.080 0.0479 0.125 9.141 51.62
SC/ 1 100x60 5.070 3.077 0.0481 0.125 15.14 51.62
SC/ 1 120x60 6.125 2.973 0.0474 0.156 18.98 32.79
SC/ 1 180x60 8.844 2.984 0.0476 0.164 17.98 32.79
SC/ 2 180x60 8.852 2.980 0.0476 0.164 24.98 32.79
Figure 2.6 Mulligan & Pekozs Cross Section
Asko Talja's Experiments from Finland[1990]--Flat-ended Column with
Uniform Compression
Twelve roll-formed high-strength steels (HSS) column tests were
carried out on plain channel sections at Technical Research Center of Finland.
Channel columns were tested under uniform compression in a fixed end
condition. The basic cross-sectional dimensions are presented in Table 2.7.
The typical cross-section is shown in Figure 2.7.
18
b
a
r
Table 2.7 Asko Talja's Cross Section
Asko Talja's Cross Section
Specimen bw
(mm)
bf
(mm)
t
(mm)
R
(mm)
L
(mm)
Fy
(N/ mm
2
)
U127x40x6 a) 127.0 40.6 5.98 7.5 240 609
b) 127.0 40.6 5.98 7.5 650 609
c) 127.0 40.6 5.98 7.5 1000 609
d) 127.0 40.6 5.98 7.5 1400 609
U186x80x6 a) 186.4 79.8 5.96 7.5 490 570
b) 186.4 79.8 5.96 7.5 1200 570
c) 186.4 79.8 5.96 7.5 2100 570
d) 186.4 79.8 5.96 7.5 3100 570
U286x80x6 a) 287.0 78.9 5.94 7.25 560 576
b) 287.0 78.9 5.94 7.25 1400 576
c) 287.0 78.9 5.94 7.25 2200 576
d) 287.0 78.9 5.94 7.25 3100 576
Figure 2.7 Asko Talja's Cross Section
Ben Young's Experiments from Australia[1997]--Flat-ended and Pin-ended
Columns with Uniform Compression
A series of tests was performed on plain channels press-braked from
high strength structural steel sheets at University of Sydney to study the effect
of support conditions (fixed-ended, pin-ended) on singly symmetric columns.
Geometric imperfections, material properties and residual stresses were
19
measured on nearly all test specimens before testing. Four different cross
section geometries were tested over a range of lengths which involved pure
local buckling, distortional buckling as well as overall flexural buckling and
flexural-torsional buckling. The shift of the effective centroid was measured
experimentally. Tables 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 show the basic cross-sectional
dimensions. The data in shaded cells correspond to pin-ended columns;
while the other data correspond to fix-ended columns. The cross sectional
dimension is presented in Figure 2.8.
Table 2.8.1 Ben Youngs Cross Section Information on Series P36
Specimen Bf
(mm)
Bw
(mm)
t t
(base metal)
Radius L
(mm)
A
(mm
2
)
Fy
(Mpa)
P36F0280 36.8 96.8 1.51 1.47 0.85 279.9 246 550
P36F1000 36.7 96.6 1.52 1.48 0.85 1000.2 248 550
P36F1500 36.8 97.4 1.5 1.46 0.85 1500.9 245 550
P36F2000 36.8 96.6 1.51 1.48 0.85 2000.6 247 550
P36F2500 36.8 97 1.51 1.48 0.85 2499.4 248 550
P36F3000 36.8 96.9 1.51 1.47 0.85 3000.5 246 550
P36P0280- 36.9 96.6 1.51 1.48 0.85 280 247 550
P36P0315- 37 96.8 1.5 1.46 0.85 314.5 245 550
P36P0815- 36.8 97.5 1.51 1.48 0.85 814.9 249 550
P36P1315- 37 96.6 1.5 1.46 0.85 1315.1 245 550
Table 2.8.2 Ben Youngs Cross Section Information on Series P48
Specimen Bf
(mm)
Bw
(mm)
t t
(base metal)
Radius L
(mm)
A
(mm
2
)
Fy
(Mpa)
P48F0300 49.6 94.6 1.51 1.47 0.85 *300 280 510
P48F1000 49.7 94.7 1.51 1.47 0.85 999.7 281 510
P48F1500 49.6 95.5 1.51 1.46 0.85 1500.9 280 510
P48F1850 49.6 95.1 1.54 1.49 0.85 1850 284 510
P48F2150 49.5 95.9 1.52 1.47 0.85 2148.9 282 510
P48F2500 49.7 95.4 1.52 1.47 0.85 2499.8 282 510
P48F3000 49.5 96 1.53 1.47 0.85 3001.3 283 510
P48F3500 49.5 95.8 1.52 1.47 0.85 3501.2 282 510
20
(Continued Table 2.8.2)
P48P0300
+
49.6 94.8 1.51 1.46 0.85 *300 279 510
P48P0565- 49.8 94.5 1.53 1.48 0.85 564.9 283 510
P48P1065 50 94.2 1.52 1.48 0.85 1064.7 282 510
P48P1565- 49.4 95.1 1.52 1.47 0.85 1565 281 510
Figure 2.8 Ben Youngs Cross Section
Pekoz's Experiments from USA [1998] -- Flat-ended Column with Uniform
Compression
Seven plain channels under uniform compression were tested at
Cornell University. The channels were loaded flat-ended between bearing
plates. The failure modes were also reported. Imperfections were not
measured. Table 2.9 shows the basic cross-sectional dimensions. The typical
cross-section is shown in Figure 2.9.
21
Table 2.9 Pekozs Cross Section
No. L(in) t(in) a(in) b(in) Pult
(kips)
Fy
(ksi)
failure mode
1 114.85 0.064 3.28 1.52 4.70 51.2 FB
2 114.80 0.060 2.26 1.54 4.00 53.6 FB
3 72.02 0.063 3.25 1.03 4.10 54.5 FB,CFM
4 72.00 0.062 2.30 1.04 4.00 57.8 FB,CFM
5 58.25 0.061 2.25 1.58 6.90 52.5 FTB
6 58.15 0.081 3.23 1.56 14.60 58.4 FB,CFE
7 65.62 0.062 3.26 1.04 5.20 55.1 FB,CFE
FB: flexural buckling
TFB: torsional flexural buckling
CFE: local buckling near the ends due to crippling of flanges
CFM: local buckling at the middle due to crippling of flange
Fig.2.9 Pekoz's Cross Section
2.3 Beam-Columns
2.3.1 Eccentricity of the Load in the Plane of Symmetry
P. Jayabalan's Experiments from India[1989]-- Flat-ended Column with
Eccentric Compression
Twenty columns with non-uniform compression were tested at India Institute
of Technology Madras, ten of which were corresponding to the case of
maximum compression at the free edge and the remaining were
corresponding to the case of maximum compression at the supported edge:
a
b
22
Kex=0.5; Key=0.5; Ket=0.5. Table 2.10 shows the basic cross-sectional
dimensions. The typical cross-section is shown in Figure 2.10.
Table 2.10 Jayabalan's Cross sectional Dimensions
NO Type D(mm) W(mm) t(mm) R(mm)
C1 F 89.4 59.1 1.8 6
C2 S 96.8 50 1.94 6
C3 F 89.3 59.3 1.78 6
C4 S 89.8 59 1.75 5.5
C5 F 89.7 57.7 1.78 5.5
C6 S 97.4 50.7 1.96 6
C7 F 120.3 56.8 1.73 6
C8 S 120.2 57.7 1.81 6
C9 F 120.3 58.9 1.85 6
C10 S 119.4 56.8 1.74 6
C11 F 120 57.4 1.81 5.5
C12 S 119.7 59.4 1.71 5.5
C13 F 61.5 58 1.77 6
C14 S 59.4 61 1.73 5.5
C15 F 62 59.8 1.81 6
C16 S 61.1 56.9 1.79 5.5
C17 F 184.4 53.1 2.09 6.5
C18 S 184.7 53.1 2.12 7
C19 F 184.7 50.7 2.11 7
C20 S 184.2 49.1 2.15 6.5
F stands for the case of maximum compression at free edge and
S stands for the case of maximum compression at supported edge
23
Fig 2.10 Jayabalan's Cross Section
K. Srinivasa Rao's Experiments from India[1998]--Pin-ended Column with
Eccentric Compression
Thirteen plain channels under non-uniform compression were tested at
India Institute of Technology Madras to study the torsional-flexural buckling
of locally buckled long members with singly symmetric open sections. Table
2.11 shows the basic cross-sectional dimensions. The typical cross-section is
shown in Figure 2.11.
Tables 2.11 Srinivasa's Cross Sections
Specimen Bf(mm) Bw(mm) t(mm) Ri(mm) L(mm) ex(mm)
LPCI-11 50.2 42.91 1.48 5.02 598 -1.61
LPCI-12 50.58 41.53 1.49 4.76 902 -2.17
LPCI-21 49.57 43.72 1.48 4.52 1503 10.5
LPCI-31 49.61 43.98 1.48 4.65 1193 -11.8
LPCII-11 90.76 38.12 1.49 2.77 797 1.3
LPCII-12 90.65 38.89 1.48 2.75 1503 3.78
LPCII-21 91.34 37.15 1.49 2.89 1099 9.97
LPCII-22 89.36 42.02 1.49 4.02 1499 28.88
LPCII-23 88.86 42.62 1.47 4.04 2200 43.68
LPCII-31 90.83 38.43 1.48 2.9 1100 -8.26
D
W
24
LPCII-32 89.37 42.05 1.49 3.77 1498 -19.34
LPCIII-33 89.93 42.92 1.49 3.76 2205 -45.32
LPCIII-11 155.5 48.85 1.48 3.77 1097 1.92
Fig.2.11 Srinivasa's Cross Sections
2.4 Others
Several other researchers have also studied plain channel cross
sections, while their experimental results are not available.
Chilver [1953]: Twelve stub columns were tested, while no information
was given about geometric imperfections and the lengths of the specimens.
Pekoz [1977]: Twelve stub columns were tested, while no information
was given on the lengths of the columns.
Batista et al.[1987]: A series of tests on plain channel columns fabricated
by brake-pressing form 1.5, 2.0 and 4.0mm steel sheets was made. Columns
were tested between pinned ends under concentric loading or as stub
columns. The overall geometric imperfections and residual stresses were
measured in some specimens. The long columns mainly failed in flexural or
flexural-torsional buckling without local buckling, and some columns failed
interactively in local and overall modes.
Bw
Bf
25
As none of the existing analytical models are satisfactory for the
available experimental data, there is a definite need for the specification to
provide some guidance in the design of plain channels.
3. ELASTIC BUCKLING
The determination of the ultimate strength when the plate elements are
in the post buckling range is based on the effective width procedure. The
effective width procedure necessitates the use of the plate buckling stress or
the plate buckling coefficient k.
In AISI Specification, plate buckling coefficients are limited to isolated
plates. However, cold-formed sections are composed of interconnected
plates. In addition, the buckling of one plate affects the buckling and post-
buckling of the remaining plates that comprise the section.
Simple equations for plate buckling coefficient k considering the
interaction between plate elements were developed for minor and major axis
bending as well as for columns. These equations were obtained by using a
computer program CUFSM developed by Schafer (1997) at Cornell University.
The dimensions of plain channels are in the ranges of practical applications by
the industry.
3.1 Beams
3.1.1 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Tension
A parameter study has been carried out for plain channels having
minor axis bending with stiffened element in tension. The ratio of flange
width b2 over web width b1 varies from 0.1 to 1. The cross section is
26
illustrated in Figure 3.1. The results are shown in Figure 3.2. The stress
gradient is displayed in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.2 k versus b2/ b1 for Minor Axis Bending
with Stiffened Element in Tension
It is found that k is independent of the channel thickness and is an
approximate linear function of b2/ b1. Channels with flanges not at right
bending about the weak axis
y = 0.1451x + 1.2555
1.24
1.26
1.28
1.3
1.32
1.34
1.36
1.38
1.4
1.42
0 0.5 1 1.5
b2/b1
k
parameter study Linear (parameter study)
Figure 3.1 Cross Section for Parameter
Study
b2
flange
b1
web
27
bending about the weak axis
y = 4.5119x
2
+ 6.5345x - 0.2064
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
b2/b1
k
angles to the web (hereinafter angled channels) and ordinary plain channels of
the same dimensions have almost the same magnitude of k value.
2555 . 1 ) ( 1451 . 0
1
2
+
b
b
k
f
3.1.2 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Compression
A similar parameter study has been carried out for plain channels
having minor axis bending with stiffened element in compression. The cross
section is illustrated in Figure 3.1. The results are shown in Figure 3.4. The
stress gradient is displayed in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.3 Stress Gradient for
Minor Axis Bending with
Stiffened Element in Tension
28
Figure 3.4 k versus b2/ b1 for Minor Axis Bending
with Stiffened Element in Compression
2064 . 0 ) ( 5345 . 6 ) ( 5119 . 4
1
2 2
1
2
+
b
b
b
b
k
f
f w
k b b k
2
2 1
) / (
3.1.3 Major Axis Bending
There are two types of section profiles being tested in this category:
1) Asko type : two plain channel sections have some distance in between,
which is shown in Figure 3.6.
2) Reck type: two plain channel sections are closly connected; this type is
more like a W cross section with web thickness 2t shown in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.5 Stress Gradient for
Minor Axis Bending with
Stiffened
Element in Compression
Figure 3.6 Major Axis
Bending--Asko Type
Figure 3.7 Major Axis
Bending--Reck Type
29
3.1.3.1 Plate buckling coefficients obtained from CUFSM for Asko Type
Figure 3.8 results from CUFSM for Asko type channels
Figure 3.8 shows the buckling shape of the plain channel and its
corresponding half-wavelength and load factor. A parameter study has also
been carried out and the results are shown in Figure 3.9. The stress gradient is
displayed in Figure 3.10.
asko_fk
y = 4.2346x - 0.1329
y = 0.3561x + 0.7452
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
b2/b1
k
30
1329 . 0 ) ( 2346 . 4
1
2

b
b
k
f
, when 2264 . 0
1
2

b
b
7452 . 0 ) ( 3561 . 0
1
2
+
b
b
k
f
, when 2264 . 0
1
2
>
b
b
Figure 3.10
Stress Gradient for Major
Axis Bending--Asko Type
Figure 3.9 k versus b2/ b1 for Asko type channels
f w
k b b k
2
2 1
) / (
3.1.3.2 Plate buckling coefficients obtained from CUFSM for Reck Type
Figure 3.11 shows the buckling shape of the plain channel and its
corresponding half-wavelength and load factor. A parameter study also has
been carried out and the results are shown in Fig. 3.12. The stress gradient is
displayed in Figure 3.13.
31
Figure 3.11 Results from CUFSM for Reck Type Channels
Figure 3.12 k versus b2/ b1 for Reck Type Channels
1246 . 1 ) ( 0348 . 0
1
2
+
b
b
k
f
f w
k b b k
2
2 1
) / (
3.2 Columns
A parameter study has been carried out on plain channel sections of
pure compression with b2/ b1 changing from 0 to 5. The cross section is
reck_fk
y = 0.0348x + 1.1246
1.126
1.128
1.13
1.132
1.134
1.136
1.138
1.14
1.142
1.144
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
b2/b1
k
Figure 3.13 Stress
Gradient for Major Axis
Bending--Reck Type
32
plain channel under axial compression
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6
b2/b1
K
illustrated in Figure 3.1. The results are shown in Figure 3.14. The stress
gradient is displayed in Figure 3.17.
Figure 3.14 k versus b2/ b1 for Columns
The web as shown in Fig. 3.15a dominates local buckling of a plain
channel with narrow flanges. As the flange width increases, flanges may
determine local buckling, as would be the case for the channel shown in Fig.
3.15b. Two-line approximation can be formulated to determine k in Figure
3.16.
33
Fig. 3.15 Concentrically loaded channels
Figure 3.16 formula of k versus b2/ b1 for Columns
0237 . 0 ) ( 2851 . 1
1
2

b
b
k
f
, when 7201 . 0
1
2

b
b
8617 . 0 ) ( 0556 . 0
1
2
+
b
b
k
f
, when 7201 . 0
1
2
>
b
b
Figure 3.17 Stress
Gradient for Columns
y = 1.2851x - 0.0237
y = 0.0556x + 0.8617
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
34
4. ULTIMATE STRENGTH: FINITE ELEMENT STUDIES
4.1 Minor Axis Beam Bending with Stiffened Element in Tension
El Mahi and Rhodes' experimental work at University of Strathclyde is
studied in 4.1.1 and evaluated by Finite Element Program ABAQUS in Part
4.1.2. Based on the studies in 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, design formulations are
proposed in Part 5.1.1. Further parameter studies using abaqus are carried
out in 4.1.3.
4.1.1 Studies on Failure Behavior of Laterally Braced Beam
The results from El Mahi and Rhodes' experimental investigation are
studied. It is found that different controlling parameters such as flange over
web ratio b2/ b1, flange slenderness b2/ t, beam span L, and inclined angle
affect failure loads.
1) Flange Width to Web Depth Ratio b2/ b1
Test results are grouped by thickness in Figure 4.1.1 for different flange
width to web depth ratios. It is clear that the failure load is affected by the
ratio b2/ b1. Higher flange over web ratio results in higher values of failure
moment.
35
Mtest vs. b2/b1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000
b2/b1
M
t
e
s
t
t=0.061-0.0622mm t=0.0461-0.0465mm t=0.0453-0.0465mm
t=0.0598-0.0618mm t=0.0213-0.022mm t=0.0276-0.028mm
t=0.0315-0.0321mm t=0.0472-0.0476mm
Figure 4.1.1 Effect of Flange over Web Ratio b2/ b1
2) Flange Slenderness b2/ t
Test results are organized by thickness in Figure 4.1.2 for different
flange slenderness. Specimens having lower values of b2/ t ratio fail by
yielding instead of buckling elastically. It is also found out that thicker
specimens sustain higher loads before failure.
Mtest vs. b2/t
0
100
200
300
400
500
0.0000 20.0000 40.0000 60.0000 80.0000 100.0000
b2/t
M
t
e
s
t
t=0.061-0.0622mm t=0.0461-0.0465mm t=0.0453-0.0461mm
t=0.0598-0.0618mm t=0.0213-0.022mm t=0.0276-0.028mm
t=0.0315-0.0321mm t=0.0472-0.0476mm
36
Figure 4.1.2 Effect of Flange Slenderness b2/ t
3) Beam span L
The failure moment of longer beams is slightly lower than that of
shorter beams.
4) Inclined angle
For angled-plain channel specimens, the experimental results showed
that the failure moment decreases as theta (shown in Figure 4.1.3) increases.
When theta is between 0 and 45 degree, there is slight reduction in the
bending moment, whereas when theta is greater than 45, there is notable
reduction in the bending moment, as shown in Figure 4.1.4.
Figure 4.1.3 El Mahi and Rhode's Cross Section
Based on the above study, the strength reduction factor Rf is suggested
as follows.
When theta is between 0 and 30 degree, Rf=1.1
When theta is between 30 and 45 degree, ) 30 (
15
1 . 1 8 . 1
1 . 1

+
F
R
When theta is greater than 45 degree, Rf=1.8
37
80mm
80mm
860mm
Figure 4.1.4 Effect of Inclined Angle
4.1.2 Verification Studies Using Abaqus
El Mahi and Rhodes' experimental results were used to verify the finite
element results.
4.1.2.1 Finite Element Model
--Simply supported beams with cantilevered ends shown in Figure 4.1.5 was
modeled
--Element Type: shell element S9R5
--Aspect ratio: 1.02~1.21
--Symmetry was used; half of the beam was modeled
--Imperfection magnitude was 0.1t (t is the plate thickness).
Figure 4.1.5 El Mahi and Rhodes' Experimental Setup
P P
theta vs. Mtest
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
theta
M
t
e
s
t
(
N
m
)
t=1.18 t=1.18 t=1.57-1.62
t=0.55-0.56 t=0.54-0.55 t=0.805-0.815
t=1.2-1.21
38
Spec16 Midspan M-U Diagram
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
0 2 4 6 8 10
U(mm)
M
(
N
m
m
)
Rhode's Experiment abaqus model (no imperf)
abaqus model with imperf
Spec18 Midspan M-U Diagram
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
0 5 10 15
U(mm)
M
(
N
m
m
)
Rhode's Experiment abaqus model (no imperf)
abaqus model with imperf.
4.1.2.2 Abaqus Results
Midspan Moment -Displacement Diagrams of all specimens of El Mahi
and Rhodes experiments were studied and only Spec16, Spec18, Spec22 and
Spec32 were presented in Figures 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, and 4.1.9, respectively.
Figure 4.1.6 Midspan Moment -Displacement Diagram of Spec16
Figure 4.1.7 Midspan Moment -Displacement Diagram of Spec18
39
Spec22 Midspan M-U diagram
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
0 5 10 15 20
U(mm)
M
(
N
m
m
)
Rhode's Experiment abaqus model (no imperf.)
abaqus model with imperf.
Figure 4.1.8 Midspan Moment -Displacement Diagram of Spec22
Figure 4.1.9 Midspan Moment -Displacement Diagram of Spec32
4.1.2.3 Observations and Conclusions
1) Generally speaking, most of El Mahi and Rhodes' experimental data are
reliable. Within the elastic range, the Abaqus midspan moment-displacement
Spec32 Midspan M-U diagram
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
U(mm)
M
(
N
m
m
)
exp abaqus abaqus(imp)
40
diagram (hereinafter called M-U diagram) has a good agreement with the
experimental data.
2) Abaqus results with and without imperfections are also presented in M-U
diagrams. It is important to note that with the introduction of imperfection,
the ultimate load is reduced significantly. Imperfection sensitivity is studied
in Appendix B.
3) Residual stresses are not included in Abaqus models of 4.1.2 and will be
investigated in 4.1.3.
4) In Spec18 and Spec32, tensile strain is observed in Abaqus at free edges
before the ultimate load is reached, which is in agreement with El Mahi's
experimental finding. However, the deflections in M-U diagram obtained
from Abaqus results are found twice difference from experimental results
within the elastic range. After communicating with Dr. Rhodes and
investigating his test readings, it is found that experimental recording of
deflection might not be correct. The ultimate load in experiments falls
between Abaqus results with and without considering imperfection.
Based on the above study, an effective width approach in the post
buckling range and the use of post yield strain reserve capacity expressed in
terms of a ratio, Cy, the post-yield to yield strains, are proposed in Part 5.1.1.
4.1.3 Parameter Studies
As the proposed design formulations were based on only one set of
experimental data from one research institute that was available when the
research was undertaking. Parameter studies using Abaqus are carried out.
Geometric imperfections and residual stresses are two of parameters for finite
element studies. Geometric imperfection studies are shown in Appendix B.
41
30%fy
27%fy
39%fy
27%fy
30%fy
4.1.3.1 Residual Stress
Residual stresses may develop during the manufacturing process as a
result of non-uniform plastic deformations. They vary an enormous amount
for all sections. Ben Schafer (1997) investigated in depth the magnitude and
distribution of residual stress in cold-formed steel sections. Based on this
work, a longitudinal through thickness flexural residual stress for plain
channel roll-formed sections shown in Figure 4.1.10 is introduced in
parameter studies. Flexural residual stresses are in tension outside and equal
but in compression inside in Figure 4.1.10.
Flexural residual stresses are self-equilibrating through the thickness
and thus have a small net effect. However, the early yielding on the face of
the plates due to the residual stresses may have influence on the stress
distribution and the way the load is carried in the plate.
Figure 4.1.10 Distribution and Magnitude of Flexural Residual Stresses
Abaqus results with and without considering residual stresses are
shown in Figure 4.1.11. The results indicate that residual stresses' influence
on the ultimate load is small.
42
Figure 4.1.11 Effect of Residual Stress on Ultimate Load
4.1.3.2 Models for Parameter Studies
Two models are developed and compared with the experimental data.
One is a simply supported beam with end plates shown in Figure 4.1.12. The
other is a simply supported beam with beam elements at two ends shown in
Figure 4.1.13. Spec21 in El Mahi and Rhodes' test is shown for comparison
study. The results of these two models along with the experimental data and
the results from the model in Verification Study are presented in Figure
4.1.14.
W225_F10_tg16 Midspan M-U Diagram
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
U(mm)
M
(
N
m
m
)
Nonlinear Analysis (no residual stress)
Nonlinear Analysis with Residual Stress
43
Figure 4.1.12 A Simply Supported Beam with End Plates
Figure 4.1.13 A Simply Supported Beam
with Beam Elements at Two Ends
44
Figure 4.1.14 Comparison of Results from Different Abaqus Model s
Observations and Conclusions:
1) The results from three Abaqus models are compared with the experimental
data. Within elastic range, all of these three models have good agreement
with experimental data. Abaqus model with end plates can not trace the
dropping portion of M-U diagram, while the other two Abaqus models can
follow the inelastic range very well.
2) Results from the model with beam elements at two ends matched well with
experimental data in elastic range and can follow the descending branch.
Hence it is selected for parametric study.
3) Imperfection is not included in Figure 4.1.14 comparison study.
4.1.3.3 Parameter Studies
The objective of this parameter study is three folded:
Spec21 Midspan M-U Diagram
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
U(mm)
M
(
N
m
m
)
Spec21(experiment from El Mahi & Rhodes)
Abaqus model close to test setup (model in Verification Study)
Abaqus model with end plates
Abaqus model with beam elements
45
1) quantify the effects of imperfection and residual stress on the ultimate load
of plain channel sections;
2) validate the proposed empirical design formulations in Part 5.1.1;
3) study laterally braced beams of varied flange slendernesses and different
dimensions that industries have interest in.
Therefore, the members for parameter studies are selected to be typical
sections of industrial practical applications.
4.1.3.3.1 Model Parameters
Model parameters include flange slenderness b2/ t, flange over web
ratio b2/ b1, plate thickness t, imperfections, and residual stresses.
4.1.3.3.2 Model Beam Length
Since the ultimate load of plain channels is influenced by the length of
the section, a study on the beam length is conducted.
The geometry of the cross section is taken the same as that of Spec21. in
El Mahi and Rhodes' experiment. Only beam length varies from 300mm,
500mm, 700mm to 1000mm. The beam length effects are obvious from Figure
4.1.15. The longer the beam length, the lower the ultimate strength is. A beam
length of 750mm is selected in my parameter study. The length is chosen to
ensure that the beam would not be subject to lateral buckling.
46
Figure 4.1.15 Study of Beam Length Effect
4.1.3.3.3 Mesh Discretization
A complete study of mesh discretization is computational expensive.
A nonlinear analysis is conducted and the result is compared with the
experimental data. It is assumed that good agreement with experimental data
implies an adequate mesh for nonlinear analysis. The result is presented in
Figure 4.1.16.
4.1.3.3.4 Residual Stress
Residual stresses are included in parameter study. The residual stress
distribution and magnitude is shown in Figure 4.1.10.
study of length effects(Spec21)
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
beam length(mm)
M
u
l
t
(
N
m
m
)
47
Figure 4.1.16 Study on Mesh Size
4.1.3.3.5 Geometric Imperfections
Two types of imperfections are found in existing measuring data: type
I imperfection refers to the maximum local imperfection in a stiffened
element; while type II imperfection refers to the maximum deviation from
straightness for an unstiffened flange. It is found that type I and type II
imperfections do not have strong linear relationship and that type I
imperfection is less important. Further study shows that type II imperfection
is function of flange slenderness. The magnitude of the normalized type II
imperfection (d2/ t) corresponding to cdf25 (cumulative distribution function
is at 25% level, or imperfection magnitude of 75% probability of exceedance),
cdf50 and cdf75 can be calculated as follows.
cdf25: [0.039(bf/ t) - 0.1638]+(-0.8617)[ 0.0174(bf/ t ) - 0.2063]
cdf50: [0.039(bf/ t) - 0.1638]+( 0.0643)[ 0.0174(bf/ t ) - 0.2063]
cdf75: [0.039(bf/ t) - 0.1638]+( 0.7698)[ 0.0174(bf/ t ) - 0.2063]
Spec21 Midspan M-U Diagram
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
U(mm)
M
(
N
m
m
)
El Mahi and Rhodes' Spec21 Abaqus Model
48
where, d2 is the maximum magnitude of Type II imperfection; t is the plate
thickness; bf is the flange width. Details of the imperfection studies can be
found in Appendix B.
The lowest eigenmode is selected for the imperfection distribution.
Two maximum type II imperfection magnitudes, one at the 25% CDF level
(cumulative distribution function is at 25% level, or imperfection magnitude
of 75% probability of exceedance) and the other at the 75% CDF level are used
to evaluate ultimate strength.
4.1.3.3.6 Model Cross-Sections
A survey of cross sections commonly used by the industry indicated
the following dimension:
(a: width of flanges; b: width of web; t: plate thickness; Fy: yield
strength)
I. a is 2.25'', 3.25'', 3.75'',
b is 1'',1.5'', 2'', 2.5''
t is 0.064'', 0.067'', 0.083'', 0.1''
Fy: 1) 36ksi; 2) rolled
II. only has two standard braked shapes
a=8.75'', b=3.25'', t=0.088'' Fy=55ksi
a=10.25'', b=3.1875'', t=0.092'', Fy=55ksi
III. a=2.25''-3.30'', t=0.060''-0.064'', 0.081''
b/ t=16-26, Fy=51-59ksi
Based on the above data, web width of 2.25'', 3.25'', 3.75'' are chosen for
parameter studies. In parametric studies, thickness varies from 0.064'', 0.067''
to 0.083''; flange slenderness changes from 10 to 54.7. The flange over web
49
stress-strain curve
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004
strain
s
t
r
e
s
s
Fy=248N/mm2 Fy=379N/mm2
ratio is chosen to be less than 1 such that the cross sections are practical
sections in industry. Fy equal to 36ksi(248N/ mm
2
) and 55ksi(379N/ mm
2
)
respectively are selected for study.
4.1.3.3.7 Stress Strain Curve
Fy=248N/ mm
2
, E= 205000Mpa; and Fy=379N/ mm
2
, E= 205000Mpa are
chosen for this parameter study. Stress strain curve is presented in Figure
4.1.17.
4.1.3.3.8 Parameter Study Results and Discussion
Imperfection sensitivity is shown in Figure 4.1.18. Ultimate load
obtained from Abaqus is compared with that from my proposed method and
Mabaqus/ Mns is plotted against in Figure 4.1.19, where refers to flange
slenderness, which is
cr
y
f
f
.
Figure 4.1.17 Stress Strain Curve
50
upper er r or bar s i ndi cat e M wi t hout i mper f ect i on and r esi dual st r ess
mi ddl e er r or bar s i ndi cat e M wi t h i mper f ect i on magni t ude of 25%
pr obabi l i t y of exceedance; l ower er r or bar s i ndi cat e M wi t h
i mper f ect i on magni t ude of 75% pr obabi l i t y of exceedance.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
l a md
M
a
b
a
q
u
s
4.1.3.3.9 Summaries and Conclusions:
1) It is obvious in Figure 4.1.18 that the ultimate load corresponding to cdf25
is not much different from that corresponds to cdf75. Thus it can be
concluded that plain channel sections are not imperfection sensitive cross
sections.
2) Based on the observation of Figure 4.1.19, it is concluded that the amount of
imperfection magnitude in proposed design formulations in Part 5.1.1 is
accurately considered.
3) From Figure 4.1.19, it is seen that results from the proposed design
formulations have good agreement with Abaqus results.
Figure 4.1.18 Imperfection Sensitivity Study
51
Figure 4.1.19 Mabaqus/ Mns vs.
cr
y
f
f
4.2 Flat-ended and Pin-ended Columns
Ben Young's experimental work at University of Sydney is evaluated
by Finite Element Program ABAQUS in Part 4.2.1 and reasons for
unsatisfactory results of pin-ended columns are investigated; hence possible
reasons for discrepancies are listed in Part 4.2.3. Based on these studies,
design recommendations are therefore presented in Part 5.2.
4.2.1 Verification Studies using Abaqus
Verification studies to evaluate Ben Young's test results are important,
because their experimental investigation (especially for pin-ended column
test) is used as the basis for the design recommendations. Finite element
study using Abaqus is carried out to verify the experimental work.
Mabaqus/Mns
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
lamd
M
a
b
a
q
u
s
/
M
n
s
M25/Mns M75/Mns
52
4.2.1.1 Finite Element Model of Ben Young's Experiements
--Fix-ended conditions are to restrain both minor and major axis rotations as
well as twisting rotations and warping;
--Pin-ended conditions are to allow rotation about minor axis, while
restraining major axis rotations as well as twisting rotations and warping;
--Two thick end plates are introduced to restrain warping.
--Element Type: shell element S9R5
--Aspect ratio: 1.02~1.21
--Imperfection distribution: the lowest eigenmode is selected
--Imperfection magnitude: maximum type II imperfection magnitudes at the
cdf50 (imperfection magnitude of 50% probability of exceedance) are used to
evaluate ultimate strength based on the imperfection model discussed in
Appendix B
--Residual Stress: residual stress and distribution and magnitude in Figure
4.1.10 are introduced.
4.2.1.2 Abaqus Study Results and Conclusions
Specimen P36F0280, P36F3000, P36P0280, P36P1315 in Series P36 and
P48F0300, P48F3500, P48P0300, P48P1565 in Series P48 of Ben Young's
experiments are selected for Verification Study. The Abaqus results are listed
in Table 4.1. It can be found in Table 4.1 that Abaqus results have good
agreement with Ben Young's test results.
53
Table 4.1 Abaqus Results for Ben Young's Experiments
cdf50
Specimen Pt Pabaqus Pabaqus/ Pt
N N
P36F0280 65000 70000 1.077
P36F3000 24700 25795 1.044
P36P0280 55200 60250 1.091
P36P1315 27000 27225 1.008
P48F0300 66000 77550 1.175
P48F3500 29500 27456 0.931
P48P0300 45200 58938 1.304
P48P1565 31200 29832 0.956
Middle P denotes pin_ended conditions
Middle F denotes fix-ended conditions
4.2.2 Studies on Fix-ended Columns
Ben Young's experiments showed that shifting of the neutral axis after
local buckling did not induce overall bending for the fixed-ended columns.
(Figures 4.2.1 and 4.2.2)
Figure 4.2.1 Comparison of test strengths with design strengths for
Series P36 (Taken from Ben Youngs dissertation(1997))
54
Figure 4.2.2 Comparison of test strengths with design strengths for
Series P48 (Taken from Ben Youngs dissertation(1997))
4.2.3 Studies on Pin-ended Columns
For the pin-ended columns, shifting of the neutral axis after the local
buckling is considered in Ben Young's work (1998), and therefore members
have combined compressive axial load and bending. Ben Young's
experimental studies have deepened the understanding of the pin-ended
column behavior. However, his work using beam-column equations (the dark
dash line -- Aust/ NZ & AISI k=0.43) did not show satisfactory results for
Series P48 in Figure 4.2.3.
55
Figure 4.2.3 Comparison of test strengths with design strengths for
Series P48 (Taken from Ben Youngs Dissertation (1997))
Possible reasons for unsatisfactory results by using beam-column
equations for pin-ended columns are discussed as follows:
1) For bending part, when calculating the effective width of the flanges, there
is no provision for unstiffened elements under stress gradient. In Ben
Youngs study, the flanges were conservatively assumed to be in uniform
compression. This assumption contributes to the poor prediction of Pult by
AISI Specification.
2) Using beam-column equations for pin-ended columns, the same amount of
eccentricity is taken along the entire length of the column for the entire load
history. But actually when load is applied, the eccentricity varies along the
56
entire length of the column. These contribute to the discrepancies between
test results and results from AISI Specifications.
Based on the observation of the lateral deflection graphs for the load
history of these specimens, it is found that the global deflection shape is sine
wave for pin-ended columns and that the average eccentricity is less than two
thirds of the maximum magnitude of the lateral deflection. Thus the beam-
column equation is improved for pin-ended columns by using 2/ 3 of the
maximum of eccentricity instead of the maximum of eccentricity. The
comparison results for Series P36 and Series P48 specimens in Ben Young's
experiments are shown in Tables 4.2 and 4.3, respectively.
Table 4.2 Comparison results for Series P36
Specimen Ptest Pns Pns/ Ptest Pns Pns/ Ptest
(beam-column)-e (beam-column)-2/ 3e
P36P0280- 55.2 41.906 0.759 47.228 0.856
P36P0315- 52.1 40.329 0.774 45.471 0.873
P36P0815- 40.9 32.923 0.805 36.116 0.883
P36P1315- 27 22.64 0.839 23.722 0.879
mean 0.794 mean 0.872
Stedv 0.035 stedv. 0.012
Table 4.3 Comparison results for Series P48
Specimen Ptest Pns(BC) Pns/ Ptest Pns Pns/ Ptest
(beam-column)-e (beam-column)-2/ 3e
P48P0300+ 45.2 35.938 0.795 41.666 0.922
P48P0565- 38.6 35.443 0.918 40.836 1.058
P48P1065 33.9 30.826 0.909 34.804 1.027
P48P1565- 31.2 24.713 0.792 26.912 0.863
Mean 0.854 mean 0.967
Stedv 0.069 Stedv. 0.091
57
5. ULTIMATE STRENGTH: PROPOSED PROCEDURES
The design procedures developed are applicable to cross-sections in
the range of practical sections used in the industry, namely 1 /
1 2
b b . The
design procedures developed are consistent with AISI Specification for
calculating the overall capacity of plain channels.
The formulations developed involve the use of effective widths for the
component plate elements that are in the post-buckling. Using these effective
widths effective section properties and hence the ultimate load carrying
capacities are determined. The approach is thus in agreement with the frame
work of the unified approach of Pekoz (1987) used in the AISI Specification
(1996).
For members that exhibit inelastic reserve capacity, post yield strain
reserve capacity expressed in terms of a ratio, Cy that is the ratio ultimate
strain divided by the yield strain. The ultimate moment of a flexural member
is determined by statics based on the ultimate strain capacity as is done in the
AISI Specification (1996). The details of the equations developed are given
below.
5.1 Beams
5.1.1 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Tension
Effective Width Model for Flanges
f y
Ek f t b / ) / ( 052 . 1
2
or
cr y
f f /
2555 . 1 ) / ( 1451 . 0
1 2
+ b b k
f
if 859 0. >
9 . 3
1
925 . 0

,
_

y
cr
f
f

58
f2
f1
b1o
b2o
if 859 0.
1

2
b b
e

e y ns
S f M
Post-yield Strain Reserve Capacity Model
C
y
= 3.0 for 535 0.
C
y
=
2
0924 0
5877 0
) . (
.

for 859 0 535 0 . < < .


C
y
= 1 for 859 . 0
The nominal moment capacity is determined as described in AISI
Specification (1996) Section C3.1.1 b.
5.1.2 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Compression
Effective Width Model
For stiffened elements in uniform compression:
The effective width, b, is to be determined using AISI Specification
Section B2.1
y
F f ,
w
k k . The value of
w
k is to be determined by the
equations given in Part 3.
For unstiffened elements under a stress gradient:
For the post-buckling behavior of unstiffened elements a consistent
effective width shown in Figure 5.1 as suggested by Schafer (1997) is used.
When
1
2
f
f
,
) 1 (
1

b
b
o

2 )
) 1 (
(
2
2
b
b
o
where
77 . 0 0 < 30 . 0
95 . 0 77 . 0 < 23 . 0
00 . 1 95 . 0 6 . 4 6 . 4 +
in which,
1 when 673 . 0
59
Figure 5.1 Consistent Effective Width

) / 22 . 0 1 (
when 673 . 0 >
cr
f
f
1

e y ns
S F M
When unstiffened elements does not undergo local buckling, the
nominal moment capacity is determined based on initiation of yielding or its
ultimate moment. The ultimate is determined based on the ultimate (post-
yield) strain capacity.
Post-yield Strain Reserve Capacity Model
Cy=3 for 46 . 0
Cy=
) 46 . 0 673 . 0 (
) 46 . 0 (
* 2 3


for 673 . 0 46 . 0 < <
Cy=1 for 673 . 0
The nominal moment capacity is determined as described in AISI
Specification (1996) Section C3.1.1 b.
5.1.3 Major Axis Bending
Effective Width Model
Reduction factor for distortional buckling stress, suggested by Schafer
(1997), is obtained as follows.
1
d
R when 673 . 0
3 . 0
1
17 . 1
+
+

d
R when 673 . 0 >
where,
cr y
f f
] , [ min
cr d cr cr
f R f f
For unstiffened element in uniform compression, the effective widths
are determined as described in AISI Specification Section B3.2 with
y
F f ,
and using the plate buckling coefficient as given in Part 3, namely k= kf
60
For stiffened element under a stress gradient, the consistent effective
width described above is used
e y ns
S F M .
Post-yield Strain Reserve Capacity Model
Post-yield Strain Reserve Capacity Model needs further study when
more experimental data are available.
5.2 Flat-ended and Pin-ended Columns
Flat-ended columns: assuming loading through the effective centroid,
column equation is to be used to design flat-ended columns.
Pin-ended columns: assuming loading through the effective centroid,
beam-column equation is to be used to design pin-ended columns. Two
thirds of the maximum eccentricity is selected for the beam-column equation
because the eccentricity varies along the length of the column.
5.3 Beam-Columns
Strength of plain channel beam columns can be determined by the
interaction equations (AISI Specification Section C5.2.2) with the improved
plate buckling coefficient k described in Part 3.
The parameters for the column part of the beam-column equations, flat-
ended columns are to be treated as concentrically loaded columns; while pin-
ended columns are treated as beam-columns. The eccentricity of the load
should be determined on the basis of the location of the load and the average
deflections of the beam column instead of the maximum deflections. The
parameters for the beam part of the beam-column equations, the formulations
developed above are to be used.
61
6. ULTIMATE STRENGTH: EXPERIMENTAL
INVESTIGATION
6.1 Experiments of Minor Axis Beam Bending with Stiffened Elements in
Tension
Tests were performed on two plain channel beams, the dimensions of
which are common in industry. The purpose of the test is firstly, to study the
behavior of plain channel cross sections of minor axis beam bending with
stiffened elements in tension, and secondly, to evaluate the proposed design
procedure. Geometric imperfections were measured before testing. Details of
the imperfection measurement are discussed in Appendix A.
6.1.1 Test Specimens
Two plain channel beams with end plates were tested. The measured
cross-section dimensions, as well as material properties, were listed in Table
6.1, where t is thickness; L is the beam span of the pure bending part shown in
Figures 6.1 and 6.2. Thickness was measured with a metric micrometer, and
web and flange width were measured with a vernier calliper. All these
measurements were taken as the average value of three readings at different
locations.
Table 6.1 Cross-section Dimensions and Material Properties
b1(in) b2(in) t(in) L(in) Fy(kips)
Specimen1 2.237 1.0265 0.0648
8
35.25 58.4
Specimen2 2.3055 1.567 0.0758 59.25 58.4
62
P/2 P/2
P/ 2 P/ 2
58''
80''
L
9.25''
Figure 6.1 Dimensions of Beam Specimen1
Figure 6.2 Dimensions of Beam Specimen2
6.1.2 Test Setup
Beams were tested on the flat table of the test machine. The test
machine was a Baldwin 400kip open loop load frame. The magnitude and
speed of loading were controlled by adjusting the loading and unloading
valves of the control panel. Load was measured with a pressure sensor
working in parallel with the test machine force measuring system.
Displacement was measured with DC-DC Linear Variable Differential
Transformers mounted between the table of the test machine and appropriate
points on the bottom of the deflecting beam. Measurements were made with
an HP3497 data acquisition system controlled by an IBM PC clone computer.
11.375'' 11.375''
L
9.25''
63
P
load spreading beam
clam
stiffened arm tested beam
Figure 6.3 Beam Test Setup
Beam Specimen1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Dispacement (in)
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
Figure 6.4 Load vs. Displacement
curve of Beam Specimen1
During the test, a load vs. displacement curve was plotted on the computer
screen and individual measurement values were printed on the computer
screen. All data was stored on the computer disk drive for later analysis.
Two very stiff arms of C cross-section were firmly attached to the two
end plates of each beam in order to ensure the application of pure moment in
plain channel beam. Load was applied through a load spreading beam onto
plates outside of the pure bending range. The test setup is sketched in Figure
6.3.
6.1.3 Beam Test Results
Load vs. Displacement Curves for specimen1 and specimen 2 are
plotted in Figures 6.4 and 6.5. The displacement refers to the difference
between mid-span deformation and end plates deformation. The evaluation
of the proposed design procedure is presented in Table 6.2.
64
Figure 6.5 Load vs. Displacement
curve of Beam Specimen2
Beam Specimen2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (in)
L
o
a
d


(
k
i
p
s
)
The unstiffened components in compression almost buckled
simultaneously at the two ends of the beam in Specimen 1, shown in Figure
6.6.
Figure 6.6 Beam Specimen1
65
The buckling of one of the unstiffened components followed by the
buckling of the other unstiffened components and twisting are observed in
Specimen 2, shown in Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.7 Beam Specimen 2
Table 6.2 Evaluation of Proposed Design Procedure

test
M (KNmm)
ns
M (KNmm)
test ns
M M /
Specimen1 0.6379 342.22 364.1 1.064
Specimen2 0.8236 735.132 703.4 0.957
6.2 Experiments on Beam-Columns
6.2.1 Introduction
The following three load cases shown in Figure 6.8 are of interest:
Case 1: Axial Loading with Bending about Symmetry Axis
Case2: Axial Loading with Bending about the Centroidal Axis
Perpendicular to the Symmetry Axis
Case 3: Axial Loading with Biaxial Bending
66
Figure 6.8 Load Conditions
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
bf
bw
Figure 6.9 Cross-Section Geometry
of Beam-Column Test
As substantial experimental data are available from Jayabalan and
Srinivasa's Experiments for Case 2, experiments on Case 1 and Case 3 will be
conducted.
6.2.2 Test Specimens
Four beam-column tests were performed: two on short columns and
two on long columns. The cross section is shown in Figure 6.9. The measured
dimensions and material properties are listed in Table 6.3.
67
Table 6.3 Cross Section Dimensions and Material Properties
bf(in) bw(in) t(in) L(in) Fy(kips)
BC1_30 1.979 3.271 0.0666 30.00 36
BC2_30 2.036 3.277 0.0750 30.75 36
BC1_65 2.028 3.278 0.0650 65.00 36
BC2_65 2.075 3.278 0.0630 64.75 36
6.2.3 Test Setup
The end conditions of beam-columns were pin-ended which allowed
rotations about x-x and y-y axis with restraining twist rotations and warping.
The effective length coefficients were 0 . 1
y x
K K and 5 . 0
t
K . End plates
were welded to the column. Thus, cross sectional warping at the ends were
restrained by the end plates. Hence, the eccentric load did not produce a
bimoment at the ends. As it was eccentric loading in these experiments,
twisting at the ends were prevented as a result of cross sectional warping
being restrained. The test setup is sketched in Figure 6.10.
The steel plate was used to transfer the
Loading
Machine
Loading
Machine
Figure 6.10 Test Setup
68
load into the column. The hinge at the supports was accomplished by a steel
ball. The load was applied to the column through a steel ball. Circular
dimples were machined on the end plates so that the steel balls rested on a
particular position with respect to the specimen throughout the test. Washers
were welded onto the end plates to prevent the steel balls from accidentally
dislodging from its positions. The column was loosely chained to the testing
machine at the top and the bottom. A spirit level was used to ensure that the
column is vertical.
Displacement transducers were mounted to measure the midheight
deflections as well as the deflections at the supports. By this way, it was
possible to compensate the midheight deflection from the possible
movements of the steel ball at the supports when the applied load was
increased. Twelve resistance strain gages were mounted around the cross-
section at column midheight to monitor the subultimate strain variations.
6.2.4 Test Results:
BC1-Axial Loading with
Bending about Symmetry Axis
BC2-Axial Loading
with Biaxial Bending
Figure 6.11 Load Conditions of Beam-Column Test
69
Four beam-column tests were evaluated and compared with finite
element studies, as shown in Table 6.4. Test setup as well as failure modes
are given in Figures 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16 and 6.17.
Table 6.4 Cross-Section Dimensions and Test Results
bf(in) bw(in) t(in) L(in) ex(in) ey(in) P(pound) FEM/ EXP
EXP FEM
BC1_30 1.979 3.271 0.0666 30.00 1.437 1.636 2137.65 2520 1.179
BC2_30 2.036 3.277 0.0750 30.75 0 1.639 6434.65 6165 0.958
BC1_65 2.028 3.278 0.0650 65.00 1.467 1.639 1436.80 1599.8 1.113
BC2_65 2.075 3.278 0.0630 64.75 0 1.639 4186.53 4860 1.161
Figure 6.12 BC1_30 Setup and Failure Mode
70

Figure 6.14 BC1_65 Failure
Mode
Figure 6.15 BC1_65 Close-
up
Figure 6.13 BC2_30 Setup and Failure
71

7. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ULTIMATE STRENGTH
PROCEDURES
Details of the experimental, analytical and numerical studies of plain
channels subjected to axial load, bending and combined axial load and
bending were discussed. In Part 2, previous research is reviewed. In Part 3,
simple equations for plate buckling coefficients are obtained. Based on finite
element studies in Part 4, design procedures of channels are proposed in Part
5. Experiment investigation is presented in Part 6. The results of the
proposed design procedures are compared with the experimental results in
this part. The possible reasons for discrepancies between test data and
proposed design procedures are also discussed.
Figure 6.16 BC2_65 Failure
Mode
Figure 6.17 BC2_65 Close-up
72
7.1 Evaluation of Experimental Results of Beams
7.1.1 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Tension
7.1.1.1 Comparison with Available Experimental Data
1) Comparison with Enjiky's Data (Table 7.1)
Table 7.1 Evaluation of All Enjiky's Data

Mns/ Mtest Cy
Group1:1 0.15569 0.965904 3
2 0.30984 0.853825 3
3 0.46362 0.851136 3
4 0.61726 0.966837 2.1334
5 0.77082 1.058123 1.2769
6 0.92433 1.042927 1
7 1.0778 1.108672 1
8 1.2313 1.133222 1
9 1.3636 1.004066 1
10 1.7897 0.990688 1
11 2.0453 1.073457 1
12 2.301 1.022192 1
13 2.5567 0.984931 1
group2 0.95666 1.096539 1
0.95666 1.134919 1
0.95666 1.108377 1
0.95666 1.118431 1
0.95666 0.810898 1
0.95666 0.857118 1
group3:1 0.15569 0.915583 3
2 0.30984 0.802439 3
3 0.46362 0.890313 3
4 0.61726 1.005561 2.1334
5 0.77082 1.077099 1.2769
6 0.92433 1.028595 1
7 1.0778 1.118093 1
8 1.2313 1.182103 1
9 1.3636 1.023301 1
10 1.7897 1.007597 1
11 2.0453 1.032482 1
12 2.301 1.282742 1
13 2.5567 1.339029 1
Enjiky has extensive test data which are organized into three groups.
Group1 and group 3 have the same dimensions of plain channels except the
73
300mm
1000mm
200mm
mm
1000mm
different span in test setup, shown in Figure 7.1 and 7.2. Experiments within
group2 were identical in virtually every respect with only the varying loading
time intervals (ie 3, 4, 6 and 8 minutes). Time interval of 3 minutes was
adopted for groups 1 and 3 experiments.
Figure 7.1 Test Setup for Group1 for Enjiky's Experiment
Figure 7.2 Test Setup for Group 3 for Enjiky's Experiment
The comparison results of Enjiky's three groups of data are plotted in
Figure 7.3. It is found that the results from group1 and group3 are very close,
except the last two data. In order to investigate the span effect on these two
data, the load factor and its corresponding half wavelength obtained from
CUFSM are presented in Table 7.2.
74
Figure 7.3 Comparison Study of Enjiky's Three Groups of Data
Table 7.2 CUFSM study of Enjiky's Cross Sections
Unstiffened Element in Compression
No Type Half Wavelength(mm) Load Factor
1 30x8x1.6 27 55.16
2 45x16x1.6 36 20.95
3 60x24x1.6 47 10.92
4 75x32x1.6 59 6.70
5 90x40x1.6 71 4.53
6 105x48x1.6 81 3.26
7 120x56x1.6 96 2.46
8 135x64x1.6 106 1.93
9 160x80x1.6 126 1.68
10 210x105x1.6 166 0.97
11 240x120x1.6 191 0.75
12 270x135x1.6 210 0.59
13 300x150x1.6 235 0.48
The plate buckling coefficient k is based on the minimal load factor
obtained from CUFSM parameter study. In specimen No12 and No13, the
load factor reached its lowest value at 210mm and 235mm, respectively. But
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
lamda
M
t
e
s
t
/
M
n
s
75
the span in Group 3 is only 200mm, which is too short to reach its minimal
load factor. Thus, Group 1 is chosen as a better set of data between group1
and group3 and the comparison results are listed in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Evaluation of Enjiky's Data

Mns/ Mtest Cy
1 0.15569 0.965904 3
2 0.30984 0.853825 3
3 0.46362 0.851136 3
4 0.61726 0.966837 2.1334
5 0.77082 1.058123 1.2769
6 0.92433 1.042927 1
7 1.0778 1.108672 1
8 1.2313 1.133222 1
9 1.3636 1.004066 1
10 1.7897 0.990688 1
11 2.0453 1.073457 1
12 2.301 1.022192 1
13 2.5567 0.984931 1
mean 1.004306
stedv 0.084924
2) Comparison with P. Jayabalan's Data (Table 7.4)
Table 7.4 Evaluation of P. Jayabalan's Data

Mns/ Mtest Cy
1 1.5491 1.016436 1
2 1.8475 1.0662 1
3 2.7525 1.056758 1
4 1.4913 0.838856 1
5 1.8349 0.843028 1
6 2.868 0.983865 1
Mean 0.967524
Stedv 0.102385
3) Comparison with El Mahi and Rhodes' Data (for right-angled cross section
only) (Table 7.5)
76
Table 7.5 Evaluation of El Mahi and Rhodes' Data

Mns/ Mtest Cy
1 0.26824 0.808146 3
2 0.54921 0.807037 2.8164
3 0.76156 0.883392 1.3125
4 1.0668 0.871384 1
5 0.37498 0.884251 3
6 0.70894 1.015187 1.5461
7 1.0777 0.983478 1
8 1.4113 1.016229 1
9 0.39854 1.054107 3
10 0.7375 0.956206 1.4122
11 1.1167 1.119207 1
12 1.4346 1.09565 1
13 0.29177 0.915919 3
14 0.53382 0.833403 3
15 0.80389 0.88199 1.1609
16 1.0536 0.929282 1
17 0.76372 1.016425 1.3041
18 1.5538 0.893975 1
19 2.2472 0.963484 1
20 3.0494 1.005328 1
21 2.3775 0.939055 1
22 1.7958 0.938615 1
23 1.2127 0.917936 1
24 2.3767 0.891186 1
25 2.3229 1.287465 1
26 1.2313 0.948947 1
27 0.87776 0.910415 1
28 1.1128 1.081362 1
29 1.365 1.088838 1
30 1.4982 1.211152 1
31 1.7009 1.30373 1
32 1.4982 1.211152 1
33 1.7009 1.165311 1
34 0.70789 0.911245 1.5514
35 0.90444 0.845952 1
36 1.2219 0.954745 1
37 1.0899 0.932227 1
38 1.3543 1.164185 1
39 1.3431 1.062011 1
mean 0.992298
stedv 0.127991
77
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4
M
n
s
/
M
t
e
s
t
El Mahi and Rhodes'
Data
Enjiky's Data
Jayabalan's Data
Fang Yiu and Pekoz's
Data
cr y
f f /
Figure 7.4 Comparative Study of Minor Axis Bending
with Stiffened Element in Tension
4) Comparison with Fang Yiu and Pekoz' Data (Table 7.6)
Two experiments were conducted in Cornell University. Details of
these two tests are in Part 6.1.
Table 7.6 Evaluation of Fang Yiu and Pekoz' Data

Mns/ Mtest Cy
1 0.63788 1.064068 1.9751
2 0.82358 0.956846 1.0993
mean 1.010457
stedv 0.075817
7.1.1.2 Evaluation Data and Resistance Factor
Experimental result of El Mahi and Rhodes (1985), Enjiky (1985),
Jayabalan (1989), and the tests carried out at Cornell University in 1999 by
Fang Yiu and Teoman Pekoz were used to formulate the provisions for the
case of minor axis bending with stiffened element in tension.
The mean value of Mns over Mtest ratio (excluding the results for plain
channels where the flanges are not at right angles to the web) is 0.993; the
sample standard deviation is 0.114; resistance factor is 0.718 in probability
model. For specimens with post-yield reserve capacity, that is, Cy>1, is
0.690; When Cy=1, is 0.740. The comparison results are shown in Figure 7.4.
78
7.1.2 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Compression
7.1.2.1 Comparison with Available Experimental Data
1) Comparison with Enjiky's Data (Table 7.7)
Table 7.7 Evaluation of All Enjiky's Data

Mns/ Mtest Cy
group1 0.12998 0.91152 3
0.21609 0.81576 3
0.30037 0.8585 3
0.38406 0.63041 3
0.46746 0.35104 2.9299
0.55072 0.95206 2.1482
0.63389 1.1805 1.3672
0.717 1.3896 1
0.76777 1.1835 1
1.0077 1.2849 1
1.1517 1.1291 1
1.2956 1.461 1
1.4396 1.5261 1
group2 0.12998 0.68364 3
0.21609 0.83532 3
0.30037 0.90635 3
0.38406 0.91264 3
0.46746 0.93598 2.9299
0.55072 1.011 2.1482
0.63389 1.3277 1.3672
0.717 1.6453 1
0.76777 1.4494 1
1.0077 1.7365 1
1.1517 2.0596 1
1.2956 2.2483 1
1.4396 2.5629 1
group3 0.28547 0.82314 3
0.365 0.87998 3
0.44427 0.92337 3
0.52339 0.91732 2.4048
0.60244 0.93811 1.6626
0.68142 1.0575 1
0.82247 1.0467 1
1.0795 1.021 1
1.2337 1.0272 1
1.3879 0.9828 1
1.5421 1.042 1
79
300mm
1000mm
200mm
mm
500mm
Enjiky has extensive test data which are organized into three groups.
Group1 and group 2 have the same dimensions of plain channels except the
different span in test setup, shown in Figure 7.5 and 7.6. In group 1 and
group 2, load was applied as shown in Figure 7.7, which caused local
crushing besides local buckling. Improved load condition in Figure 7.8 is
adopted to avoid local crushing in group 3. Therefore, group 3 is selected for
comparison study and the comparison results are shown in Table 7.8.
Figure 7.5 Test Setup for Group1
Figure 7.6 Test Setup for Group2
Figure 7.7 Load condition in Group1 and Group2
Figure 7.8 Load condition in Group 3
80
Table 7.8 Evaluation of Enjiky's Data

Mns/ Mtest Cy
1 0.28547 0.82314 3
2 0.365 0.87998 3
3 0.44427 0.92337 3
4 0.52339 0.91732 2.4048
5 0.60244 0.93811 1.6626
6 0.68142 1.0575 1
7 0.82247 1.0467 1
8 1.0795 1.021 1
9 1.2337 1.0272 1
10 1.3879 0.9828 1
11 1.5421 1.042 1
mean 0.969011
stedv 0.077709
2) Comparison with P. Jayabalan's Data (Table 7.9)
Table 7.9 Evaluation of P. Jayabalan's Data

Mns/ Mtest Cy
1 0.33074 0.98847 3
2 0.43754 2.405 3
3 0.35765 1.2985 3
It is reported in Jayabalan's experiments that local crushing and local
buckling both contribute to the failure, while local crushing is not considered
in AISI equation, which causes the discrepancies in test data and design
equations.
7.1.2.2 Evaluation Data and Resistance Factor
Test results of Enjiky (1985) are used for minor axis bending with
stiffened element in compression. The mean value of Mns over Mtest ratio is
0.9690; the sample standard deviation is 0.0777; resistance factor = 0.7253 in
probability model. The comparison results are shown in Figure 7.9.
81
7.1.3 Major Axis Bending
7.1.3.1 Comparison with Available Experimental Data
1) Comparison with Reck's Data (Table 7.10)
Table 7.10 Evaluation of Reck's Data
Reck's Specimen
Mtest Mns Mns/ Mtest
(in-K) (in-K)
UP-9 36.9 34.5541 0.9364
UP-10 14.3 12.7170 0.8893
UP-11 15.5 12.1074 0.7811
mean 0.868933
stedv 0.079628
2) Comparison with Asko Talja 's Data (Table 7.11)
Table 7.11 Evaluation of Asko Talja's Data
Test Name Mtest(kNm) Mns Mns/ Mtest failure mode
UU1/ MR1 56.88 48.428 0.8514 Yielding
UU1/ MR2 39.75 48.428 1.2183 lateral buckling
The underestimation of Specimen UU1/ MR2 was due to the imprecise
boundary conditions in the experiments, which was observed by Asko. Asko
type cross section shown in Figure 7.10 was supposed to act separately as two
cr y
f f /
Figure 7.9 Comparative Study of
Minor Axis Bending with
Stiffened Element in Compression
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
M
n
s
/
M
t
e
s
t
82
individual plain channels, while the sections rotate together under force
during the experiment. These contribute to the discrepancies between test
data and design equations.
Figure 7.10 Asko Type Cross Section
7.1.3.2 Evaluation Data
Test results of Reck reported by Kalyanaraman (1976) and Talja (1992)
provided the basis for the design procedure. For the relevant test data from
these references the mean value of Mns over Mtest ratio is 0.8646 and the sample
standard deviation is 0.0656. Resistance factor = 0.6318 in probability model.
The comparison results are shown in Figure 7.11.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Specimen
M
n
s
/
M
t
e
s
t
Figure 7.11 Comparative Study of
Major Axis Bending
83
7.2 Evaluation of Experimental Results of Columns
7.2.1 Flat-ended Columns
7.2.1.1 Comparison with Available Experimental Data
1) Comparison with Asko Talja's data--fixed-ended column with uniform
compression (Table 7.12)
Table 7.12 Evaluation of Asko Talja's data
Asko Talja (flat ended column)
Specimen Ptest(KN) Pns Pns/Ptest
(Column)
U-127x40x6: 1 770 672.7 0.874
2 640 617.7 0.965
3 475 539.6 1.136
4 305 431 1.413
U-186x80x6: 1 980 964.1 0.984
2 1020 913.6 0.896
3 900 810.4 0.900
4 640 679.3 1.061
U-286x80x6: 1 1020 1066.7 1.046
2 940 1001 1.065
3 945 894.5 0.947
4 750 738.8 0.985
mean 1.023
stedv. 0.146
2) Comparison with Ben Young's data -- fixed-ended column with uniform
compression (Table 7.13, 7.14)
Table 7.13 Evaluation of Ben Young's Data Series P36
Series P36- flat-ended column
Specimen Ptest Pns Pns/Ptest
(column)
P36F0280 65 64.786 0.997
P36F1000 59 56.824 0.963
P36F1500 50.1 46.31 0.924
P36F2000 41.7 37.257 0.893
P36F2500 32.8 29.186 0.890
P36F3000 24.7 22.629 0.916
mean 0.931
stedv. 0.042
84
Table 7.14 Evaluation of Ben Young's Data Series P48
Series P48- flat-ended column
Specimen Ptest Pns(C) Pns/Ptest
(column)
P48F0300 66 62.992 0.954
P48F1000 62.7 57.139 0.911
P48F1500 55.5 49.613 0.894
P48F1850 47.2 45.697 0.968
P48F2150 43.6 39.785 0.913
P48F2500 38.5 33.978 0.883
P48F3000 37.4 27.739 0.742
P48F3500 29.5 23.332 0.791
mean 0.882
stedv. 0.078
3) Comparison with Mulligan's data -- fixed-ended stub-column with uniform
compression (Table 7.15)
Table 7.15 Evaluation of Mulligan's Data
Mulligan Stub Column Specimens
Specimen Ptest Pns Pns/Ptest
SC/ 1 60x30 7.40 6.47 0.874
SC/ 1 90x30 7.35 6.58 0.895
SC/ 1 120x30 7.80 6.77 0.868
SC/ 2 120x30 7.10 7.01 0.988
SC/ 1 40x60 7.88 7.30 0.927
SC/ 2 40x60 7.89 7.36 0.933
SC/ 1 60x60 9.16 7.81 0.853
SC/ 1 100x60 9.20 8.79 0.955
SC/ 1 120x60 8.20 6.71 0.819
SC/ 1 180x60 8.52 6.98 0.819
SC/ 2 180x60 8.50 6.98 0.821
mean 0.886
stedv 0.058
85
4) Comparison with Pekoz's data -- fixed-ended column with uniform
compression (Table 7.16)
Table 7.16 Evaluation of Pekoz's data
Pekoz Stub Column Specimens
Specimen Ptest Pns Pns/Ptest
column
1 4.70 6.007 1.278
2 4.00 3.622 0.906
3 4.10 5.841 1.425
4 4.00 5.371 1.343
5 6.90 7.984 1.157
6 14.60 16.203 1.110
7 5.20 6.767 1.301
mean 1.217
stev. 0.174
It is reported in Pekoz's data (1998) that Specimen 3, 4, 6 and 7 have
crippling of flange in the failure mode. Crippling of flange is not considered
in column equation, which contributes some discrepancies in test data and
design equations.
7.2.1.2 Evaluation Data and Resistance Factor
Data from Talja (1990), Young (1997), Mulligan & Pekoz (1983)
provided the basis for the procedures for flat-ended columns. The mean value
of Mns over Mtest ratio for the data is 0.950; the sample standard deviation is
0.126; resistance factor is 0.670 in probability model for fixed-ended
columns. The results are illustrated in Figure 7.12.
86
7.2.2 Pin-ended Columns
7.2.2.1 Comparison with Available Experimental Data
1) Comparison with Ben Young's data -- pin-ended column with uniform
compression (Table 7.17, 7.18)
Table 7.17 Evaluation of Ben Young's data SeriesP36
Specimen Pt Pns Pns/Pt
(beam-column)
P36P0280- 55.2 47.228 0.856
P36P0315- 52.1 45.471 0.873
P36P0815- 40.9 36.116 0.883
P36P1315- 27 23.722 0.879
mean 0.872
stedv. 0.012
Table 7.18 Evaluation of Ben Young's data SeriesP48
Specimen Pt Pns Pns/Pt
(beam-column)
P48P0300+ 45.2 41.666 0.922
P48P0565- 38.6 40.836 1.058
P48P1065 33.9 34.804 1.027
P48P1565- 31.2 26.912 0.863
mean 0.967
Stedv. 0.091
Figure 7.12 Comparative Study of
Flat-ended Columns
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Specimen
P
n
s
/
P
t
e
s
t
87
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
Specimen
P
n
s
/
P
t
e
s
t
7.2.2.2 Evaluation Data and Resistance Factor
Test results from Young (1997) for two series of pin-ended column test
Series P36 and P48 were used in the development of the design procedures.
The mean value of Mns over Mtest ratio is 0.920; the sample standard deviation
is 0.078; resistance factor is 0.675 in probability model. The results are
illustrated in Figure 7.13.
7.3 Evaluation of Experimental Results of Beam - Columns
7.3.1 Evaluation Methods using Interaction Equations
Beam-Column Interaction Equations:
0 . 1
) 1 ( ) 1 (

+
Ey
u
my
uy my
Ex
u
nx
ux mx
n
u
P
P
M
M C
P
P
M
M C
P
P
0 . 1 + +
ny
uy
nx
ux
no
u
M
M
M
M
P
P
where,
2
2
) (
x x
x
Ex
L K
EI
P

Figure 7.13 Comparative Study of


Pin-ended Columns
88
2
2
) (
y y
y
Ey
L K
EI
P

Ultimate loads are computed based on four methods described as


follows.
Method 1
1) in beam-column interaction equations, for beam part and column part, use
improved plate buckling coefficients obtained from CUFSM (in Part 3). For
those not practical cross-sections, use improved plate buckling coefficients
from CUFSM, instead of the kf equations in Part 3;
2) in beam-column equations, for the case of flat-ended column, the shift of
neutral axis caused by local buckling does not induce overall bending, as is
discussed in Part 5.2; for the case of pin-ended column, column itself is
treated as a beam-column with the average deflection instead of the maximum
deflection, as is suggested in Part 5.2;
3) in beam-column equations, for beam part, when stiffened elements are in
tension, the proposed design equations described in Part 5.1.1 are used; when
stiffened element is in compression, consistent effective width equation
described in Part 5.1.2, is used to decide the effective width; when unstiffened
element is in uniform compression, the proposed design equations described
in Part 5.1.3 are used.
Method 2
1) in beam-column interaction equations, for beam part and column part, use
improved plate buckling coefficient k obtained from CUFSM (in Part 3); For
89
those not practical cross-sections, using improved plate buckling coefficients
from CUFSM, instead of the kf equations in Part 3.
2) in beam-column equations, for the case of pin-ended column, pin-ended
column itself is roughly treated as a column.
3) in beam-column equations, for beam part, when stiffened elements are in
tension, the proposed design equations described in Part 5.1.1 are used; when
stiffened element is in compression, consistent effective width in Part 5.1.2, is
used to decide the effective width; when unstiffened element is in uniform
compression, the proposed design equations described in Part 5.1.3 are used.
Method 3
1) in beam-column interaction equation, for beam part and column part, use
plate buckling coefficient k according to AISI specification, except for minor
axis bending with stiffened element in tension, as there is no accurate
provisions in the Specification;
2) in beam-column equations, for beam part, when unstiffened element is in
uniform compression, AISI Part V B2.3 is used.
Method 4
Beam-Column interaction equation using gross cross-sections.
90
x
x
y
y
Figure 7.14:
Load Condition
x
x
y
y
Figure 7.15
Load Condition
7.3.2 Load Condition -- Eccentricity of the Load in the Plane of Symmetry
7.3.2.1 Evaluation of Available Experimental Data
1) the load position is on the same side as the shear center with respect to
centroid along the x axis in the plane of symmetry (Figure 7.14)
Evaluation of Jayabalan's Experiments
As it is flat-ended beam-column test, methods 1 and 4 are used to evaluate the
experimental data, as shown in Tables 7.21 and 7.22
Evaluation of Srinivasa's Experiments
As it is pin-ended beam-column test, methods 1, 2 and 4 are used to evaluate
the experimental data, as shown in Table 7.23.
2) the load position is on the other side as the shear center with respect to
centroid along the x axis in the plane of symmetry (Figure 7.15)
91
Evaluation of Jayabalan's Experiments
As it is flat-ended beam-column test, methods 1 and 4 are used to evaluate the
experimental data, as shown in Tables 7.25 and 7.26
Evaluation of Srinivasa's Experiments
As it is pin-ended beam-column test, methods 1, 2 and 4 are used to evaluate
the experimental data, as shown in Tables 7.27 and 7.28
7.3.2.2 Discussions
Observations and Discussions
a) In Jayabalan's Experiments , the theoretical value of the non-uniform stress
coefficient
th
which relates to the position of the column in the loading
frame and depth of the section as well as
exp
which relates to the
experimental edge stresses are chosen for further calculation.
b) The data in shaded cells correspond to industrial practical cross-sections
with D/ L close to and around less than 1.
c) The un-shadowed cells from Table 7.21 to Table 7.28, which correspond to
not practical sections, are not studied by the current research. As in beam-
column interaction equations, for beam part, the proposed design equations
described in Part 4 is applicable only to beams undergoing local buckling.
92
Figure 7.17 Srinivasa's
Cross Section
Bf
Bw
Table 7.21 Evaluation of Jayabalan's Data Based on non-uniform stress coefficient
exp

NO D(mm) D/t W(mm) D/W t(mm) L(mm) e0x(mm) Method1 N1/Ntest Method2 N2/Ntest Jay test
C2 96.8 49.90 50 1.94 1.94 943.3 3.395 28494.74 0.385 86580.84 1.17 74000
C4 89.8 51.31 59 1.52 1.75 312.3 4.351 21857.82 0.377 62127.99 1.07 58000
C6 97.4 49.69 50.7 1.92 1.96 183.3 9.326 38459.3 0.476 98939.66 1.22 80800
C8 120.2 66.41 57.7 2.08 1.81 1027.3 2.184 12750.36 0.264 65599.1 1.36 48300
C10 119.4 68.62 56.8 2.10 1.74 353.3 7.741 17846.13 0.362 63970.65 1.30 49300
C12 119.7 70.00 59.4 2.02 1.71 203.3 8.585 20384.42 0.345 74111.79 1.25 59100
C14 59.4 34.34 61 0.97 1.73 571.3 1.489 31051.14 0.699 41954.15 0.94 44400
C16 61.1 34.13 56.9 1.07 1.79 273.3 2.184 35836.86 0.734 47482.88 0.97 48800
C18 184.7 87.12 53.1 3.48 2.12 1007.3 6.894 24633.27 0.175 177796.5 1.26 140780
C20 184.2 85.67 49.1 3.75 2.15 335.3 12.675 16496.24 0.161 162377.2 1.58 102720
Table 7.22 Evaluation of Jayabalan's Data Based on non-uniform stress coefficient
th

NO D(mm) D/t W(mm) D/W t(mm) L(mm) e0x(mm) Method1 N1/Ntest Method2 N2/Ntest Jay test
C2 96.8 49.90 50 1.94 1.94 943.3 1.079 29106.89 0.393 93218.73 1.26 74000
C4 89.8 51.31 59 1.52 1.75 312.3 2.708 22293.05 0.384 66039.33 1.14 58000
C6 97.4 49.69 50.7 1.92 1.96 183.3 5.257 40123.44 0.497 112571.7 1.39 80800
C8 120.2 66.41 57.7 2.08 1.81 1027.3 1.470 12807.53 0.265 66972.01 1.39 48300
C10 119.4 68.62 56.8 2.10 1.74 353.3 4.162 18345.27 0.372 70786.07 1.44 49300
C12 119.7 70.00 59.4 2.02 1.71 203.3 7.004 20627.25 0.349 77322.05 1.31 59100
C14 59.4 34.34 61 0.97 1.73 571.3 0.683 32051.56 0.722 43933.22 0.99 44400
C16 61.1 34.13 56.9 1.07 1.79 273.3 1.456 36825.62 0.755 49377.11 1.01 48800
C18 184.7 87.12 53.1 3.48 2.12 1007.3 3.403 24889.43 0.177 188746 1.34 140780
C20 184.2 85.67 49.1 3.75 2.15 335.3 9.724 16632.94 0.162 171781.6 1.67 102720
W
D
Figure 7.16 Jayabalan's
Cross Section
93
Tables 7.23 Dimensions of Srinivasa's Cross Section
Specime
n
Bf(mm) Bf/ t Bw(mm) Bf/ Bw t(mm) L(mm) ex(mm)
LPCI-11 50.20 33.92 42.91 1.17 1.48 598.00 -1.61
LPCI-12 50.58 33.95 41.53 1.22 1.49 902.00 -2.17
LPCI-31 49.61 33.52 43.98 1.13 1.48 1193.00 -11.80
LPCII-31 90.83 61.37 38.43 2.36 1.48 1100 -8.26
LPCII-32 89.37 59.98 42.05 2.13 1.49 1498 -19.34
LPCIII-
33
89.93 60.36 42.92 2.10 1.49 2205 -45.32
Tables 7.24 Evaluation of Srinivasa's Data
Specimen Method 1 N1/ Ntest N1/ Nfem Method 2 N2/ Ntest N2/ Nfem Method3 N3/ Ntest N3/ Nfem Ntest Nfem
LPCI-11 20569.97 0.595 0.556 24266.05 0.702 0.656 37398.26 1.081 1.011 34580 37000.6
LPCI-12 17794.62 0.683 0.574 20861.33 0.801 0.673 30500.76 1.171 0.984 26046 30994.7
4
LPCI-31 13442.75 0.442 0.614 14917.4 0.491 0.681 17448.34 0.574 0.797 30411 21895.9
2
94
LPCII-31 8599.87 0.347 0.336 9765.9 0.393 0.382 33783.61 1.361 1.322 24819 25563.5
7
LPCII-32 7893.36 0.227 0.214 8809.17 0.254 0.239 22213.92 0.639 0.603 34737 36821.2
2
LPCIII-
33
5144.84 0.189 0.217 5572.94 0.204 0.235 10757.37 0.394 0.453 27282 23735.3
4
95
Table 7.25 Evaluation of Jayabalan's Experiments Based on non-uniform stress coefficient
exp

NO D(mm) D/t W(mm) D/W t(mm) L(mm) e0x(mm) Method1 N1/


Ntest
Method2 N2/
Ntest
Jay test
C1 89.4 49.67 59.1 1.513 1.8 940.3 1.9817 24798.19 0.55 61180.17 1.35 45200
C3 89.3 50.17 59.3 1.506 1.78 312.3 3.7539 20934.86 0.51 52541.07 1.29 40800
C5 89.7 50.39 57.7 1.555 1.78 183.3 9.6153 17491.54 0.28 41566.21 0.67 62400
C7 120.3 69.54 56.8 2.118 1.73 1030.3 1.5017 16472.21 0.37 69232.8 1.54 44900
C9 120.3 65.03 58.9 2.042 1.85 344.3 7.6475 16357.22 0.42 58515.59 1.49 39400
C11 120 66.3 57.4 2.091 1.81 201.3 9.3401 16438.7 0.52 58228.15 1.84 31700
C13 61.5 34.75 58 1.06 1.77 568.3 1.6654 28032.38 0.72 40100.01 1.03 39000
C15 62 34.25 59.8 1.037 1.81 271.3 1.8691 27507.16 0.68 43809.82 1.08 40400
C17 184.4 88.23 53.1 3.473 2.09 1003.3 6.1507 17826.42 0.17 183812.91 1.74 105400
C19 184.7 87.54 50.7 3.643 2.11 337.3 14.2734 15324.24 0.17 177590.28 1.92 92700
Table 7.26Evaluation of Jayabalan's Experiments Based on non-uniform stress coefficient
th

NO D(mm) D/t W(mm) D/W t(mm) L(mm) e0x(mm) Method1 N1/


Ntest
Method2 N2/
Ntest
Jay test
C1 89.4 49.67 59.1 1.513 1.8 940.3 0.9318 26004.6 0.58 64733.03 1.43 45200
C3 89.3 50.17 59.3 1.506 1.78 312.3 2.8929 21947.9 0.54 54961.87 1.35 40800
C5 89.7 50.39 57.7 1.555 1.78 183.3 5.0376 20653.05 0.33 50702.41 0.81 62400
C7 120.3 69.54 56.8 2.118 1.73 1030.3 1.5017 16472.21 0.37 69232.8 1.54 44900
C9 120.3 65.03 58.9 2.042 1.85 344.3 4.6819 17615.36 0.45 65116.54 1.65 39400
C11 120 66.3 57.4 2.091 1.81 201.3 8.0782 16802.79 0.53 60711.86 1.92 31700
C13 61.5 34.75 58 1.06 1.77 568.3 0.7314 31120.69 0.80 43427.21 1.11 39000
C15 62 34.25 59.8 1.037 1.81 271.3 1.6803 28295.3 0.70 44495.89 1.10 40400
C17 184.4 88.23 53.1 3.473 2.09 1003.3 3.4787 18414.13 0.17 194214.1 1.84 105400
C19 184.7 87.54 50.7 3.643 2.11 337.3 10.4429 16419.52 0.18 192892.68 2.08 92700
W
D
Figure 7.16 Jayabalan's
Cross Section
96
Figure 7.17 Srinivasa's
Cross Section
Bf
Bw
Tables 7.27 Dimensions of Srinivasa's Cross Section
Specimen Bf(mm) Bf/t Bw(mm) Bf/Bw t(mm) L(mm) ex(mm) NAISI/Ntest
LPCI-21 49.57 33.49 43.72 1.134 1.48 1503 10.5 0.29
LPCII-11 90.76 60.91 38.12 2.381 1.49 797 1.3 0.13
LPCII-12 90.65 61.25 38.89 2.331 1.48 1503 3.78 0.2
LPCII-21 91.34 61.3 37.15 2.459 1.49 1099 9.97 0.2
LPCII-22 89.36 59.97 42.02 2.127 1.49 1499 28.88 0.15
LPCII-23 88.86 60.45 42.62 2.085 1.47 2200 43.68 0.19
LPCIII-11 155.5 105.1 48.85 3.183 1.48 1097 1.92 0.12
Tables 7.28 Evaluation of Srinivasa's Data
Specimen Method1 N1/Ntest N1/N(FE) Method2 N2/Ntest N2/N(FE) Method3 N3/Ntest N3/N(FE) Rao test N(FE)/
Ntest
Failure
Mode
LPCI-21 9841 0.68 0.72 10448 0.72 0.76 12525 0.87 0.91 14470 0.95 TF
LPCII-11 15741 0.67 0.79 23114 0.98 1.16 51107 2.17 2.55 23544 0.85 TF
LPCII-12 10847 0.69 0.73 13282 0.85 0.89 24181 1.54 1.62 15696 0.95 TF
LPCII-21 11655 0.87 0.81 14753 1.10 1.03 29603 2.20 2.06 13440 1.07 TF
LPCII-22 7842 0.63 0.84 9068 0.73 0.97 16628 1.34 1.79 12410 0.75 TF
LPCII-23 4700 0.59 0.79 5048 0.63 0.85 8389.3 1.05 1.41 7956 0.75 TF
LPCIII-11 14090 0.81 1.07 24954 1.44 1.90 79627 4.60 6.05 17315 0.76 D
97
7.3.3 Load Condition -- Eccentricity of the Load in the Plane of Asymmetry
7.3.3.1 Evaluation of Available Experimental Data
1) Axial Loading with Bending about Symmetry Axis (Figure 7.18)
Evaluation of Fang Yiu and Pekoz's data: As it is pin-ended beam-
column test, methods 1, 2, 3 and 4 are used to evaluate the experimental data,
as shown in Tables 7.29.
Table 7.29 Results of Axial Loading with Bending about Symmetry Axis
Method 1 N1/Nabq Method 2 N2/Nabq Method 3 N3/Nabq Method 4 N4/Nabq Abaqus
B1_30 17810.90 0.64 20913.08 0.75 19819.8 0.71 29611.5 1.06 27900
B1_65 15760.21 0.71 17849.64 0.80 16947.2 0.76 23330.8 1.05 22200
2) Axial Loading with Biaxial Bending (Figure 7.19)
Evaluation of Fang Yiu and Pekoz's data: As it is pin-ended beam-
column test, methods 1, 2, 3 and 4 are used to evaluate the experimental data,
as shown in Tables 7.30.
Figure 7.18 Case1 Load Condition
Figure 7.19 Case3 Load Condition
98
Table 7.30 Results of Axial Loading with Biaxial Bending
Method 1 N1/Nabq Method 2 N2/Nabq Method 3 N3/Nabq Method 4 N4/Nabq Abaqus
B2_30 7593.88 0.64 8020.72 0.67 7944.99 0.67 9867.18 0.83 11900
B2_65 6808.69 0.64 7161.02 0.67 7397.83 0.69 8503.89 0.79 10700
7.3.3.2 Discussions
1) In the above-mentioned methods, Method 1 is a better description of beam-
column behavior, while the results from Method1 are the least close to
Abaqus results. This shows that the beam-column interaction equations are
conservative.
2) Method 2 uses the plate buckling coefficients from Part 3, while Method 3
adopted the plate buckling coefficients from AISI Specification. The results
from Method 2 and Method 3 are not too much different.
7.3.4 Evaluation Data
Jayabalan (1989) and Srinivasa (1998) provide results of beam-column
experiments with eccentricity of the load in the plane of symmetry. Fang Yiu
and Pekoz in 2000 tested beam-column with eccentricity of the load in the
plane of asymmetry. Only the data corresponding to practical cross-sections
are evaluated and plotted in Figure 7.20.
The correlation of the test results of C, channel, and hat section beam-
columns with the use of interaction equations was plotted in Figure 7.3-1 of
Pekoz (1987). This figure presented the results of all the tests with loads with
uniaxial or biaxial eccentricities. Rp, Rx and Ry represent the first, second
and the third terms of the AISI interaction equation. Ro equals 0.707(Rx+Ry).
The projections of test points on the Rp-Ro plane was plotted. The results
99
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Ro
R
p
Pekoz (1987)
P. Jayabalan's Data
Srinivasa's Data
Fang Yiu and Pekoz's
Data
Series5
Linear (Series5)
that fell outside of the solid line in the Figure 7.20 on the right indicated that
the interaction equation is conservative for those cases. Results from
Jayabalan (1989) and Srinivasa (1998) and Fang Yiu and Pekoz are added to
the Pekoz (1987) figure and given in Figure 7.20. It is seen that the interaction
equation is also conservative for plain channel section.
8. CONCLUSIONS
Design recommendations for calculating the overall capacity of plain
channel sections subjected to various types of stress gradients in the range of
practical applications by the industry are presented. Comparison studies
indicate good agreement with experimental results.
Figure 7.20 Beam-Column Interaction Plotting
100
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Imperfection Measurements
Geometric imperfections in cold-formed steel members refer to the
deviations of an actual member from a "perfect" geometry. These
imperfections include bowing, warping, or twisting of a member, as well as
local imperfections such as dents, and plate waviness. As a matter of fact, the
strength of a cold-formed steel member is influenced by imperfections.
A milling machine and a lathe are used to take imperfection
measurements of specimens with different lengths. There are rulers in
vertical, lateral and longitudinal directions of the milling machine, which help
locate the measuring positions. When the available milling machines is not
long enough, specimens can be measured on a lathe or in several passes on
the milling machine.
A.1.1 Imperfection Measurement Setup on a Milling Machine
Specimens were mounted on the table of a milling machine, which
provided a flat reference surface for the imperfection measurements. The
collet of the milling machine could move vertically, laterally, and
longitudinally, which enabled the imperfection measurements of different
lines along the length of the specimens. A DC-DC Linear Variable Differential
Transformer with a measurement range of 05 . 0 t inches was attached firmly to
the collet of the milling machine. Imperfection data were recorded in a
101
computer at a constant interval. Figures A.1 shows the experimental setup.
Figure A.1 Imperfection Experimental Setup
A.1.2 Imperfection Measurement Setup on a Lathe
Two end plates of specimens were clamped to the chuck end supports
of a lathe. They were centered with respect to the centroid of the specimen
cross section. Because there was no ruler in a lathe, grids need to be marked
to locate measuring positions. A marker was attached to the tool support,
which was moved horizontally to mark lines. In order to mark vertical lines
to these horizontal lines, plastic rulers were stuck to the top of the specimen
with tape. A center head of a combination square set was used to mark the
vertical lines on two sides of the cross section with the alignment of the
vertical lines on the top. Thus, a grid with the interval of 1 inch was marked
before measuring the imperfections, as shown in Figure A.2. A DCDT (with
' ' 05 . 0 t measuring range) was mounted on the tool support of the lathe. The
tool support was moved horizontally to position the DCDT at 1 inch intervals
102
along each horizontal line. The DCDT can be adjusted up and down, back
and forth to measure imperfection of different sides of the cross section. The
measuring system, comprised of an IBM- PC clone computer, an NI-LPC 16
channel data acquisition card, and a power supply was monitored while the
DCDT initial position was set. The horizontal positioner for the tool support
was used to move the DCDT from position to position for measurements, as
shown in Figures A.3. The data acquisition program stored the data in a file.
Measurements were made at 1 inch increments horizontally along 3 lines on
each outside surface of the specimen. With the lathe, imperfections of longer
specimens can be measured. But when specimens are longer than the lathe,
we can measure the specimen in several segments by measuring one segment
and repositioning the specimen on the milling machine bed to measure the
next segment.
A.1.3 Imperfection Measurement Setup on a Milling Machine for Long
Specimens
As you can see from Figures A.4 and A.5 that specimens are much
longer than the length of the moveable bed of the milling machine.
Imperfections of two or more segments of the specimen can be measured. The
specimen was put on top of two supports, which firmly stood on the milling
machine. Four clamps were used to attach the specimen to the supports in
A.6. There are also four alignment pins on the supports, with two on each
support. When the one side of the specimen was measured, the other side of
the specimen was leaning along the two alignment pins, shown in Figure A.7.
After the imperfections of the first half were taken, the specimen slid
103
longitudinally along the four alignment pins. Thus, the twists and lateral
movements of the specimens were prevented.
Figure A.2 Marking Grids
Figure A.3 Measuring Imperfections
in the Middle of the Specimen
104
Figure A.4 First Half of Imperfection Measuring
Figure A.5 Second Half of Imperfection Measuring
105
Figure A.6 One Side of the Specimen Imperfection Measuring
with Clamps and Supports
Figure A.7 The Other Side of the Specimen Imperfection Measuring
with Alignment Pins, Clamps and Supports
106
Appendix B: Geometric Imperfection Studies
Several researchers have investigated geometric imperfections of cold-
formed steel plain channels: Mulligan & Pekoz(1983), Ben Young(1998). All
the researchers reported the maximum imperfections. These data are used in
this study. Moreover, imperfections are measured before beam and beam-
column tests by Fang Yiu & Pekoz(2000) to understand the magnitude of
imperfections and the variation of plate imperfections in the cross section as
well as along the length.
Two types of geometrical imperfections are found in the experimental
data. In Part B.1.1 and B.1.2, random variable nature of the two types of the
maximum imperfections are studied and the maximum imperfection models
are established in Part B.1.3. The random process nature of the imperfection
distribution is found in Part B.1.4 and the average imperfection spectrums for
web and flanges are provided in Part B.1.5. Using the results from B.1.3 and
B.1.5, random nature of the plain channel members subjected to three beam-
column load conditions are studied in Part B.1.7.
B.1.1 Two Types of Maximum Geometrical Imperfections
Maximum imperfections can be used as upper bounds of imperfection
magnitude. Two types of imperfections are found in existing measuring data,
which are shown in Figure B.1.1. Type I imperfection refers to the maximum
local imperfection in a stiffened element, while Type II imperfection refers to
the maximum deviation from straightness for an unstiffened flange.
107
Figure B.1.1 Two Types of Maximum Geometrical Imperfections
B.1.2 Correlation between Type I Imperfection and Type II Imperfection
Figure B.1.2 Correlation between Type I and Type II Imperfection
Type I and II imperfection data from Mulligan & Pekoz, Ben Young, and Fang
Type I Imperfection Type II Imperfection
Correlation of d1/t and d2/t
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
d1/t
d
2
/
t
108
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
d1/t
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Type I imperfection
Yiu & Pekoz are plotted in Figure B.1.2, which display the correlation
between Type I and Type II imperfection. The correlation coefficient of
t d /
1
and t d /
2
is
0.5546
) / , / (
/ /
2 1
/ , /
2 1
2 1

t d t d
t d t d
t d t d Cov

This shows that Type I and Type II imperfections do not have strong
linear relationship.
B.1.3 Treat the Magnitude of Imperfections as a Random Variable
As imperfections are inevitably influenced by a variety of variables
such as forming process and material handling, it is appropriate to treat
imperfections as a random variable.
B.1.3.1 Prediction of Type I Imperfections as a Function of Thickness
Type I imperfection d1 is normalized by the plate thickness t. The
histograms of Type I imperfections are given in Figure B.1.3.
Figure B.1.3 Histograms of Type I Imperfection
109
Type I imperfections is assumed to be a function of the material
thickness alone as it is of local imperfections. As only a few analyses can be
performed, cumulative distribution function (CDF) is very useful. CDF 25
indicates cumulative distribution function is at 25% level, or imperfection
magnitude of 75% probability of exceedance. The numerically estimated CDF
for Type I imperfections is shown in Figure B.1.4.
Figure B.1.4 Estimated CDF for Type I Imperfection
B.1.3.2 Prediction of Type II Imperfections a Function of Flange Slenderness
Type II imperfection d1 is normalized by the plate thickness t and the
histograms of Type II Imperfections are given in Figure B.1.5. The difference
between the two types of imperfections is obvious in histograms.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Type I imperfection
d1/t
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
X
<
x
)
P(X<x) d/t
0.25 0.1740
0.5 0.3030
0.75 0.4313
0.95 0.8806
0.99 1.0175
mean 0.3663
std.Dev 0.2619
110
Figure B.1.5 Histograms of Type II Imperfection
Type II Imperfection in an unstiffened element is actually a function of
flange slenderness and not only that of the thickness. The following is a brief
description of the Type II imperfection model.
B.1.3.2.1 Description of Method
All available experimental measurements of Type II imperfection are
plotted in Figure B.1.6. These data are grouped into four sets according to
different flange slenderness. Histograms of four sets of


t
d
2
with varying
mean and standard deviation according to different flange slenderness
can be obtained, where


t
d
2
is a random variable with zero mean and unit
variance. Combining these four histograms together, we get Figure B.1.7. The
mean value and standard deviation of Type II imperfection are obtained by
least-squares linear regression line in Figures B.1.8 and B.1.9, respectively.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
d2/t
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Type II imperfection
111
Figure B.1.6 All Available Experimental Measurement
Figure B.1.7 Histogram of


t
d
2
for
All Available Experimental Measurement
Type II Imperfection
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
flange slenderness bf/t
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

i
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n

d
2
/
t
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Type II Imperfection
/ ) (
2

t
d
112
Figure B.1.8 Mean Value of Type II Imperfection
Figure B.1.9 Standard Deviation of Type II Imperfection
mean value for Type II Imperfection
y = 0.039x - 0.1638
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
bf/t
m
e
a
n
(
d
2
/
t
)
standard deviation for Type II Imperfection
y = 0.0174x - 0.2063
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
flange slenderness bf/t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
d
/
t
)
113
B.1.3.2.2 Type II Imperfection Model
The numerically estimated cumulative distribution function (CDF) for
Type II Imperfections can be obtained and is shown in Figure B.1.10. Type II
imperfection model d2/ t is therefore developed:
cdf25: [0.039(bf/ t) - 0.1638]+(-0.8617)[ 0.0174(bf/ t ) - 0.2063]
cdf50: [0.039(bf/ t) - 0.1638]+( 0.0643)[ 0.0174(bf/ t ) - 0.2063]
cdf75: [0.039(bf/ t) - 0.1638]+( 0.7698)[ 0.0174(bf/ t ) - 0.2063]
where, d2 is the maximum magnitude of Type II imperfection; t is the plate
thickness; bf is the flange width.
Figure B.1.10 Estimated CDF for Type II Imperfections
/ ) (
2

t
d
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Type II imperfection
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
X
<
x
)
P(X<x)
0.25 -0.8617
0.5 0.0643
0.75 0.7698
0.95 1.6058
0.99 1.7871
/ ) (
2

t
d
114
B.1.4 Treat the Distribution of Imperfections as a Random Process
Imperfections of three 30in long plain channel columns with the
dimensions of 3.2x2.0x0.072 inch are measured. The spacing of the
measurements is 1 inch for all three specimens. Nine lines along the length
are measured starting from the same plane of cross section to understand the
deviation of the imperfections in the cross sections as well as along the length,
as shown in Figure B.1.11. These plain channel members are industry
interested cross-sections. Thus the imperfection measurements represent the
real imperfection pattern in practical cross sections.
Local imperfections are deviations from a perfect geometry. In order to
study local imperfections, the imperfection signals are obtained by
subtracting a least-squares linear regression line from the raw imperfection
data. The Fast Fourier transformation results of the imperfection signals are
shown in Figures B.1.12, B.1.13 and B.1.14. These transforms plot the
imperfection frequency(1/ mm) versus the imperfection amplitude(mm). The
transform reveals both the amplitude and frequency of the underlying sine
curve.
c
b
a
d e f
g
h
i
Figure B.1.11 Nine Measurements of a Cross
Section
115
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
d along the length
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
e along the length
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
f along the length
Imperfection frequency (1/ mm)
Figure 4.1.13 Fourier Transform of
Imperfections along Line d,e, and f
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
a along the length
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
b along the length
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
c along the length
Imperfection frequency (1/ mm)
Figure B.1.12 Fourier Transform of Imperfections
along Line a, b and c
116
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
g along the length
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
h along the length
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
i along the length
Imperfection frequency (1/ mm)
Figure B.1.14 Fourier Transform of
Imperfections along Line g, h and i
From the above analysis, it is observed that:
1) Local imperfections of these members are summations of sine terms with
an appropriate amplitudes, frequency, and phase shift. The imperfection
signal can be expressed in:

+
k
k k k k k
t B t A t X
1
) sin cos ( ) (
2) Imperfections in web and flanges have different patterns. Imperfections in
two flanges are not geometrically symmetric, shown in Figure B.1.15.
3) Imperfections in the flange can be assumed to be linear, as shown in
Figure B.1.15.
4) Imperfections in the web can be assumed to be symmetric. Imperfections
between the web junctions and the mid-height of the web can be assumed to
117
Flange a Flange b
web
plain channel web
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
frequencies(1/mm)
m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
s
(
m
m
)
Figure B.1.16 Average Web Imperfection Spectrum
be linear, as shown in Figure B.1.15.
5) Global imperfections, such as overall twist are not considered.
B.1.5 Average Imperfection Spectrum for Plain Channels
The imperfection spectrums characterizing imperfections of plain-
channels specimens are created from actual imperfection measuring data. As
imperfections in web and flanges have different distributions, average web
imperfection spectrum and average flange imperfection spectrum are created
in Figure B.1.16 and Figure B.1.17, respectively. Influential imperfections in
web as well as in flange are listed in Tables B.1 and B.2, respectively.
B.1.5.1 Average Web Imperfection Spectrum
Figure B.1.15 Perfect Geometry and Deformed Shape
118
plain channel flange
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
frequencies(1/mm)
m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
s

(
m
m
)
Figure B.1.17 Average Flange Imperfection Spectrum
Table B.1 Web Influential Imperfections
in Web Imperfection Spectrum(Figure B.1.16)
Frequencies(1/ mm) Magnitudes(mm)
0.0012 0.0623
0.0037 0.0244
0.0074 0.0061
0.0086 0.0261
0.0098 0.0064
0.0135 0.0063
0.0172 0.0050
B.1.5.2 Average Flange Imperfection Spectrum
Table B.2 Flange Influential Imperfections
in Flange Imperfection Spectrum(Figure B.1.17)
Frequencies(1/ mm) Magnitudes(mm)
0.0012 0.1646
0.0025 0.0798
0.0037 0.0442
0.0049 0.0270
0.0062 0.0293
0.0074 0.0644
0.0086 0.0282
119
0.0111 0.0135
0.0123 0.0200
0.0135 0.0121
0.0160 0.0168
0.0172 0.0163
0.0185 0.0038
The imperfection spectrums can be used to generate the imperfection
signal, which is able to characterize the random process nature of the
distribution.
B.1.6 Generating Imperfection Signal by Imperfection Spectrum
B.1.6.1 Probabilistic Model:
Longitudinal imperfection signal is assumed to be zero mean, real
valued stationary Gaussian stochastic process. Imperfection signal has a one-
sided spectral density, ) ( G , where is the circular frequency f 2 . In
general the imperfection signal has a spectral representation that may be
given as:

+
0
)] ( sin ) ( [cos ) ( tdV tdU t X
where, ) ( U and ) ( V are zero-mean, real-valued, independent Gaussian
process with the properties d G dV E dU E ) ( )] ( [ )] ( [
2 2
. For simulation
we discretize to approximate this process with one-sided truncated power
spectral density,

'

>

~
, 0
~
0 ), (
) (
~
G
G , as shown in Figure B.1.18.
k
I
k

) ( ) ( G d G
k
l
k
) (
~
G
Figure B.1.18 Discretization of Imperfection Spectrum
120
The stochastic process X(t) can be approximated as

+
m
k
k k k k k
t B t A t X
1
) sin cos ( ) (
where,
k
A and
k
B are independent Gaussian random variables with zero
means and unit variance.
B.1.6.2 Generation of imperfection signal
Based on the obtained average imperfection spectrums in Part B.1.5,
the imperfection signal

+
m
k
k k k k k
t B t A t X
1
) sin cos ( ) ( can be generated, in
which the circular frequency f 2 , where f is the frequency (1/ mm). Then
truncate the spectrum and discretize it into m pieces. The area under each m
piece is equal to
2
k
. m sets of
k
A and
k
B can be generated by randn.m in
Matlab built-in function. By following this procedure, one realization of
scaled Flange a imperfection signal, scaled Flange b imperfection signal and
scaled web imperfection signal is shown in Figures B.1.19, B.1.20 and B.1.21,
respectively.
-1
-0. 5
0
0. 5
1
0 200 400 600
Locat i on ( mm)
S
c
a
l
e
d

I
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Figure B.1.19 Flange a Imperfection Signal
121
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0 200 400 600
Locat i on( mm)
S
c
a
l
e
d

I
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
m
m
)
Figure B.1.20 Flange b Imperfection Signal
-1
-0. 5
0
0. 5
1
0 200 400 600
Locat i on( mm)
S
c
a
l
e
d

I
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
m
m
)
Figure B.1.21 Web Imperfection Signal
122
B.1.7 Imperfection Sensitivity Studies
For the above-mentioned three beam-column load cases, 30in long
plain channel columns with the dimensions of 3.2x2.0x0.072 inch are selected
for examining the influence of imperfection distribution and magnitude at the
same time. A random imperfection signal can be generated from the obtained
imperfection spectrums in Part B.1.5. The maximum of the web imperfection
signal and the flange imperfection signal can be generated from the maximum
type I and type II imperfections models in Part B.1.3. The spatial mapping of
the variation of the imperfection distribution is shown in Figure B.1.15. Two
different cumulated distribution functions (CDF value)-- cdf25 and cdf75 are
used. Thus the strength loss due to imperfections can be systematically
assessed. The ultimate strength ) / (
y u
P P from the Abaqus analysis is listed in
Tables B.3, B.4 and B.5. Imperfection sensitivity index is defined as:
% 100 x
) (
) ( 2
75 25
75 25
cdf cdf
cdf cdf
P P
P P
+

In order to study imperfection effect on the ultimate strength, three


load cases shown in Figure B.1.22 are studied.
Case 1: Axial Loading with Bending about Symmetry Axis
Case 2: Axial Loading with Bending about the Centroidal Axis Perpendicular
to the Symmetry Axis
Case 3: Axial Loading with Biaxial Bending
123
Load Case 1
Load Case 2
Load Case 3
Figure B.1.22 Load Cases
For each load case, 30 numbers of imperfection signals were generated.
The loss in strength is more pronounced when the imperfection magnitude is
increased. The numerically estimated cumulative distribution function (CDF)
for the ultimate strength of three different load cases is shown in Figures
B.1.23, B.1.24 and B.1.25. It is obvious from these figures that imperfection
distribution and magnitude do result in different strength loss. Gaussian
distribution is assumed for the ultimate load. For each load case, histograms,
Gaussian distribution density function and imperfection sensitivity index are
shown in Figures B.1.26, B.1.27 and B.1.28.
124
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
load1cdf25
load1cdf75
load case 1
Pu/Py
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
X
<
x
)
0.365 0.37 0.375 0.38 0.385 0.39 0.395 0.4 0.405
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
load2cdf25 load2cdf75
load case 2
Pu/Py
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
X
<
x
)
Figure B.1.23 CDF for Load Case 1
Figure B.1.24 CDF for Load Case 2
125
0.15 0.155 0.16 0.165 0.17 0.175 0.18 0.185
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
load3cdf25
load3cdf75
load case 3
Pu/Py
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
X
<
x
)
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Pu/Py
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Distributions of imperfections for load case 1
cdf25, N(0.260, 0.01540)
cdf75, N(0.254, 0.01332)
imperfection sensitivity index=2.395
Figure B.1.26 Histogram, Gaussian Distribution Density
Function and Imperfection Sensitivity Index for Load Case 1
Figure B.1.25 CDF for Load Case 3
126
0.36 0.365 0.37 0.375 0.38 0.385 0.39 0.395 0.4 0.405
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pu/Py
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Distributions of imperfections for load case 2
cdf25, N(0.382, 0.00717)
cdf75, N(0.376, 0.00561)
imperfection sensitivity index=1.558
Figure 4.1.27 Histogram, Gaussian Distribution Density
Function and Imperfection Sensitivity Index for Load Case 2
0.14 0.145 0.15 0.155 0.16 0.165 0.17 0.175 0.18 0.185 0.19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Pu/Py
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Distributions of imperfections for load case 3
cdf25, N(0.167, 0.00577)
cdf75, N(0.162, 0.00491)
imperfection sensitivity index=3.210
Figure B.1.28 Histogram, Gaussian Distribution Density
Function and Imperfection Sensitivity Index for Load Case 3
127
The random process nature of the distribution and random variable
nature of the maximum imperfection are considered at the same time to
properly assess the importance of the imperfection sensitivity. From Figures
B.1.26, B.1.27 and B.1.28, it is found that a member with large initial
imperfections has a larger strength loss. Among these three load cases, load
case 3-- axial loading with biaxial bending has the largest imperfection
sensitivity index 3.210; load case 2-- axial loading with bending about the
centroidal axis perpendicular to the symmetry axis has the least imperfection
sensitivity index 1.558. However, all three load cases do not exhibit
significant imperfection sensitivity. The ultimate strength is also influenced
by imperfection distribution. Varying the imperfection distribution
determines the scatter of resulting strength for a particular magnitude of
imperfection. However, the most significant factor of strength is still the
imperfection magnitude.
B.1.8 Conclusions
The imperfection magnitude is modeled using the maximum
imperfection models in Part B.1.3. The imperfection distribution is modeled
by the imperfection spectrum in Part B.1.5. The imperfection sensitivity of
plain channel members subjected to three different beam-column load
conditions is studied. It shows that plain channel sections are not
imperfection-sensitive cross-sections and the use of the eigenmode
imperfection pattern is sufficient. The lowest eigenmode is selected for the
imperfection distribution. Maximum type II imperfection magnitude at the
128
cdf50 (imperfection magnitude of 50% probability of exceedance) is used for
the imperfection magnitude.
t d /
2
at cdf50 is [0.039(bf/ t) - 0.1638]+( 0.0643)[ 0.0174(bf/ t ) - 0.2063],
where, d2 is the maximum magnitude of Type II imperfection; t is the plate
thickness; bf is the flange width.
Table B.3 Imperfection Studies on Load Case 1
cdf25 cdf75 Imperfection cdf25 cdf75
Load Case 1 Pu(N) Pu(N) Sensitivity
Index
Pu/ Py Pu/ Py
load1_input1 18000 17900 0.557 0.242 0.241
load1_input2 19000 18800 1.058 0.256 0.253
load1_input3 18000 17900 0.557 0.242 0.241
load1_input4 18800 18600 1.070 0.253 0.251
load1_input5 19900 19700 1.010 0.268 0.265
load1_input6 20400 19100 6.582 0.275 0.257
load1_input7 19000 18800 1.058 0.256 0.253
load1_input8 21000 19900 5.379 0.283 0.268
load1_input9 17600 17200 2.299 0.237 0.232
load1_input10 19300 19200 0.519 0.260 0.259
load1_input11 18000 17800 1.117 0.242 0.240
load1_input12 18700 18300 2.162 0.252 0.246
load1_input13 21200 20800 1.905 0.286 0.280
load1_input14 20300 19400 4.534 0.273 0.261
load1_input15 18300 18000 1.653 0.246 0.242
load1_input16 20500 19800 3.474 0.276 0.267
load1_input17 21000 19800 5.882 0.283 0.267
load1_input18 18200 17000 6.818 0.245 0.229
load1_input19 19000 18800 1.058 0.256 0.253
load1_input20 18200 18100 0.551 0.245 0.244
load1_input21 20300 19900 1.990 0.273 0.268
load1_input22 19900 19900 0.000 0.268 0.268
load1_input23 18900 18800 0.531 0.255 0.253
load1_input24 18700 18300 2.162 0.252 0.246
load1_input25 21000 19200 8.955 0.283 0.259
129
load1_input26 21200 20900 1.425 0.286 0.282
load1_input27 19000 18800 1.058 0.256 0.253
load1_input28 18100 17700 2.235 0.244 0.238
load1_input29 19600 19000 3.109 0.264 0.256
load1_input30 17800 17600 1.130 0.240 0.237
Table B.4 Imperfection Studies on Load Case 2
cdf25 cdf75 Imperfection cdf25 cdf75
Load Case 2 Pu(N) Pu(N) Sensitivity
Index
Pu/ Py Pu/ Py
load3_input1 28000 28000 0.000 0.377 0.377
load3_input2 28000 27700 1.077 0.377 0.373
load3_input3 27800 27600 0.722 0.374 0.372
load3_input4 28100 28000 0.357 0.379 0.377
load3_input5 27600 27400 0.727 0.372 0.369
load3_input6 27600 27100 1.828 0.372 0.365
load3_input7 28600 28600 0.000 0.385 0.385
load3_input8 28000 27400 2.166 0.377 0.369
load3_input9 27900 27800 0.359 0.376 0.374
load3_input10 28200 28000 0.712 0.380 0.377
load3_input11 28800 28500 1.047 0.388 0.384
load3_input12 28100 27900 0.714 0.379 0.376
load3_input13 28900 28300 2.098 0.389 0.381
load3_input14 28000 27900 0.358 0.377 0.376
load3_input15 29400 28800 2.062 0.396 0.388
load3_input16 28400 27500 3.220 0.383 0.370
load3_input17 28000 27800 0.717 0.377 0.374
load3_input18 28000 27400 2.166 0.377 0.369
load3_input19 29300 28100 4.181 0.395 0.379
load3_input20 28400 27800 2.135 0.383 0.374
load3_input21 29200 27900 4.553 0.393 0.376
load3_input22 28400 28300 0.353 0.383 0.381
load3_input23 28300 27900 1.423 0.381 0.376
load3_input24 28300 28300 0.000 0.381 0.381
load3_input25 28200 28100 0.355 0.380 0.379
load3_input26 27800 27400 1.449 0.374 0.369
load3_input27 28300 27800 1.783 0.381 0.374
130
load3_input28 29400 27600 6.316 0.396 0.372
load3_input29 29300 28700 2.069 0.395 0.387
load3_input30 28100 27600 1.795 0.379 0.372
Table B.5 Imperfection Studies on Load Case 3
cdf25 cdf75 Imperfection cdf25 cdf75
Load Case 3 Pu(N) Pu(N) Sensitivity
Index
Pu/ Py Pu/ Py
load2_input1 11800 11700 0.851 0.159 0.158
load2_input2 12200 11600 5.042 0.164 0.156
load2_input3 12200 11800 3.333 0.164 0.159
load2_input4 12600 12000 4.878 0.170 0.162
load2_input5 12500 12300 1.613 0.168 0.166
load2_input6 12600 11900 5.714 0.170 0.160
load2_input7 12700 11800 7.347 0.171 0.159
load2_input8 12300 12000 2.469 0.166 0.162
load2_input9 12400 12200 1.626 0.167 0.164
load2_input10 12300 11800 4.149 0.166 0.159
load2_input11 12500 12300 1.613 0.168 0.166
load2_input12 11800 11600 1.709 0.159 0.156
load2_input13 12500 12000 4.082 0.168 0.162
load2_input14 12400 12100 2.449 0.167 0.163
load2_input15 12000 11800 1.681 0.162 0.159
load2_input16 12500 12200 2.429 0.168 0.164
load2_input17 11700 11500 1.724 0.158 0.155
load2_input18 12400 12200 1.626 0.167 0.164
load2_input19 12200 11600 5.042 0.164 0.156
load2_input20 12600 12200 3.226 0.170 0.164
load2_input21 11800 11300 4.329 0.159 0.152
load2_input22 12400 12200 1.626 0.167 0.164
load2_input23 13400 13300 0.749 0.180 0.179
load2_input24 12400 12200 1.626 0.167 0.164
load2_input25 13600 12300 10.039 0.183 0.166
131
load2_input26 13100 12200 7.115 0.176 0.164
load2_input27 12500 12200 2.429 0.168 0.164
load2_input28 12100 11900 1.667 0.163 0.160
load2_input29 12000 11800 1.681 0.162 0.159
load2_input30 12500 12200 2.429 0.168 0.164
Appendix C: Design Recommendations
Design Recommendations for Plain Channels
The design recommendations for calculating the overall capacity of channel sections without
lips (hereinafter-plain channels in Figure1) are applicable to cross-sections in the range of
practical applications by the industry, namely 1 /
1 2
b b .
The recommendations cover design of beams, columns and beam-columns. The
recommendations treat members that are made up of elements that may or may not be in the
post-buckling range. The failure mode for beams is local buckling. The recommendations
consider the interaction between plates, and simple equations for plate buckling coefficients k
are given for minor and major axis bending as well as for columns.
1.Notations
E = Modulus of Elasticity
= Poisson's ratio
Figure 1
flange
b1
b
2
web
132
G =
) 1 ( 2 +
E
= Shear Modulus
t = plate thickness
D =
) 1 ( 12
2
3

Et
= plate rigidity
1
b = Depth of web element
2
b = Width of flange element
y
f = yield stress
cr
f = critical buckling stress of the cross-section
f
k = plate buckling coefficients considering interaction of plate
elements in terms of flange width
w
k = plate buckling coefficients considering interaction of plate
elements in terms of web depth
= post-buckling reduction factor
= slenderness factor
ns
M = nominal moment capacity
e
S = elastic section modulus of the effective section
y
C = compression strain factor
1
f = maximum compressive (+) stress on an element under a stress
gradient
2
f = tension (-) stress for an element under a stress gradient
1
2
f
f

133
1. Elastic Buckling
1.1 Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Tension
2555 . 1 ) ( 1451 . 0
1
2
+
b
b
k
f
1.2Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Compression
2064 . 0 ) ( 5345 . 6 ) ( 5119 . 4
1
2 2
1
2
+
b
b
b
b
k
f
f w
k b b k
2
2 1
) / (
134
1329 . 0 ) ( 2346 . 4
1
2

b
b
k
f
, when 2264 . 0
1
2

b
b
7452 . 0 ) ( 3561 . 0
1
2
+
b
b
k
f
, when 2264 . 0
1
2
>
b
b
1.3Major Axis Bending with Unstiffened Element in Uniform Compression
Type a)
f w
k b b k
2
2 1
) / (
Type b)
1246 . 1 ) ( 0348 . 0
1
2
+
b
b
k
f
f w
k b b k
2
2 1
) / (
2.4 Columns
135
0237 . 0 ) ( 2851 . 1
1
2

b
b
k
f
, when 7201 . 0
1
2

b
b
8617 . 0 ) ( 0556 . 0
1
2
+
b
b
k
f
, when 7201 . 0
1
2
>
b
b
3. Ultimate Strength
3.1MINOR AXIS BENDING WITH STIFFENED ELEMENT IN TENSION
3.1.1 Effective Width Model for Flanges
f y
Ek f t b / ) / ( 052 . 1
2
or
cr y
f f /
2555 . 1 ) / ( 1451 . 0
1 2
+ b b k
f
if 859 0. >
9 . 3
1
925 . 0

,
_

y
cr
f
f

if 859 0.
1

2
b b
e

e y ns
S f M
The nominal moment capacity is determined by Eq.C 3.1.1-1 in AISI Specification PartV-
45.
3.1.2 Post-yield Strain Reserve Capacity Model
C
y
= 3.0 for 535 0.
C
y
=
2
0924 0
5877 0
) . (
.

for 859 0 535 0 . < < .


C
y
= 1 for 859 . 0
The nominal moment capacity is determined as in AISI Specification C3.1.1 b) on page V-
46.
3.2 MINOR AXIS BENDING WITH STIFFENED ELEMENT IN
136
Figure 2
COMPRESSION
3.2.1 Effective Width Model
For stiffened element in uniform compression:
The effective width, b, shall be determined from AISI Specification B2.1 in Page V-35,
y
F f , k= k
w
For unstiffened elements under a stress gradient:
When unstiffened elements undergo local buckling, consistent effective width shown in Figure
2 as suggested by Ben Schafer (1997) is used.
When
1
2
f
f
,
) 1 (
1

b
b
o

2 )
) 1 (
(
2
2
b
b
o
where
77 . 0 0 < 30 . 0
95 . 0 77 . 0 < 23 . 0
00 . 1 95 . 0 6 . 4 6 . 4 +
in which,
1 when 673 . 0

) / 22 . 0 1 (
when 673 . 0 >
cr
f
f
1

e y ns
S F M
The moment capacity is determined by Eq.C 3.1.1-1 in AISI Specification PartV-45.
When unstiffened elements does not undergo local buckling, the nominal moment
capacity is determined based on initiation of yielding or its ultimate load.
3.2.2 Post-yield Strain Capacity Model
C
y
=3 for 46 . 0
C
y
=
) 46 . 0 673 . 0 (
) 46 . 0 (
* 2 3


for 673 . 0 46 . 0 < <
Cy=1 for 673 . 0
The nominal moment capacity is determined as in AISI Specification C3.1.1 b) on page V-
137
46.
3.3 MAJOR AXIS BENDING
Effective Width Model
Reduction factor for distortional buckling stress, suggested by Schafer (1997), is obtained as
follows.
1
d
R when 673 . 0
3 . 0
1
17 . 1
+
+

d
R when 673 . 0 >
where,
cr y
f f
] , [ min
cr d cr cr
f R f f
For unstiffened element in uniform compression, the effective widths are determined as
described in AISI Specification Section B3.2 with
y
F f , and using the plate buckling
coefficient as given in Part 3, namely k= k
f
For stiffened element under a stress gradient, the consistent effective width described above
is used
e y ns
S F M .
The moment capacity is determined by Eq.C 3.1.1-1 in AISI Specification PartV-45.
Post-yield Strain Reserve Capacity Model
Post-yield Strain Reserve Capacity Model needs further study when more experimental data
are available.
3.4 FLAT-ENDED AND PIN-ENDED COLUMNS
Improved plate buckling coefficients k described in Part 2.4 are used.
Flat-ended columns: assuming loading through the effective centroid, column equation is to
be used to design flat-ended columns.
Pin-ended columns: assuming loading through the effective centroid, beam-column equation
is to be used to design pin-ended columns. Two thirds of the maximum eccentricity is
selected for the beam-column equation because the eccentricity varies along the length of the
column.
3.5 BEAM-COLUMN
1) using beam-column interaction equations (AISI Specification V-62 C5.2.2) with the
improved plate buckling coefficient k described in Part 2
2) in column part of the beam-column equations , flat-ended column is treated as a column;
138
while pin-ended column itself is treated as a beam-column with the average deflection instead
of the maximum deflection.
3) in beam part of the beam-column equations, when minor axis bending with stiffened
element in tension or in compression, the design equations described in Part3.1 and in
Part3.2 are used, respectively; when major axis bending, the design equations described in
Part3.3 are used.
Appendix D: Sample Examples
1. Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Tension:
Given:
1.steel:
y
f = 270MPa; E = 205000Mpa
2.section: Specimen 7 in El Mahi and Rhodes Experiment,
test
M = 201.95Nm
centerline dimensions: t = 1.17mm; b
1
= 51.20mm; b
2
= 38.59mm
3.span L = 500mm
Required: flexural capacity using LRFD method
Solution:
2555 . 1 ) / ( * 1451 . 0
1 2
+ b b k
f
=0.1451*38.59/51.20+1.2555=1.3649
) 1 ( 12
2
3

Et
D =
) 3 . 0 1 ( 12
) 17 . 1 ( * 205000
2
3

=3.0067x10
4
t b
D k
f
f
cr
2
2
2

=
) 17 . 1 ( ) 59 . 38 (
30067 * 3649 . 1 *
2
2

= 232.4638MPa
cr
y
f
f
=
4568 . 232
270
=1.0777>0.859
if 859 . 0 >
9 . 3
1
925 . 0

,
_

y
cr
f
f
=
9 . 3 / 1
) 270 / 4638 . 232 ( * 925 . 0 0.8902
the effective flange width
2
b b
e
=0.8902*38.59=34.3528mm
139
) 20 . 51 3528 . 34 * 2 ( 3
) 3528 . 34 20 . 51 * 2 ( * 17 . 1 * ) 3528 . 34 (
) 2 ( 3
) 2 (
3
1
e 1
3
+
+

+
+

b b
b b t b
I
e
e
e
=1.8032x10
4
mm
4
) 20 . 51 3528 . 34 * 2 (
3528 . 34 * 3528 . 34
) 2 (
1
2
+

b b
b
y
e
e
e
=9.8420mm
e e
e y
ns
y b
I f
M

=
) 8420 . 9 3528 . 34 (
18032 * 270

=198632.4Nmm
Therefore
test ns
/ M M =198632.4/201950=0.9836
2. Nominal Strength Based on Inelastic Reserve Capacity for Minor Axis Bending
with Stiffened Element in Tension:
Given:
1.steel:
y
f = 270Mpa; E = 205000Mpa
2.section: Specimen 6 in El Mahi and Rhodes Experiment,
test
M =144.63Nm
centerline dimensions: t = 1.17mm; b
1
= 50.80mm; b
2
= 25.03mm
3.span L = 500mm
Required: flexural capacity using LRFD method based on inelastic reserve capacity
Solution:
2555 . 1 / * 1451 . 0
1 2
+ b b k
f
=0.1451*25.03/50.80+1.2555= 1.3270
) 1 ( 12
2
3

Et
D =
) 3 . 0 1 ( 12
) 17 . 1 ( * 205000
2
3

= 3.0067x10
4
t b
kD
f
cr
2
2
2

=
) 17 . 1 ( ) 03 . 25 (
10 0067 . 3 * 3270 . 1 *
2
4 2
x
= 537.2213MPa
cr
y
f
f
=
2169 . 537
270
= 0.7089<0.859
if 859 . 0 <
0 . 1
if 859 . 0 535 . 0 < <
1 5463 . 1 ) 0924 . 0 7089 . 0 /( 5877 . 0 ) 0924 . 0 /( 5877 . 0
2 2
>
y
C
Using equations from Reck, Pekoz and Winter, "Inelastic Strength of Cold-Formed Steel
Beams", Journal of the Structural Division, November 1975, ASCE.
140
Approximate distance from neutral axis to the outer comprssion fiber,
c
y (not considering the
effect of radiused corners):
2783 . 19
) 5463 . 1 5463 . 1 / 1 2 /( 2 / 1 *
} 03 . 25 * ) 03 . 25 80 . 50 ( * 5463 . 1 * ) 5463 . 1 5463 . 1 / 1 2 ( * 4 5463 . 1 ) 03 . 25 * 2 80 . 50 (
5463 . 1 * ) 03 . 25 * 2 80 . 50 ( {
) / 1 2 /( 2 / } ) ( ) / 1 2 ( 4 ) 2 ( ) 2 ( {
2 2
2 2 1
2 2
2 1 2 1


+ + + +
+
+ + + + +
y y y y y y y c
C C b b b C C C C b b C b b y
7517 . 5 2783 . 19 03 . 25
2

c t
y b y mm
4690 . 12 5461 . 1 / 2783 . 19 /
y c p
C y y mm
5456 . 124 4690 . 12 / 7517 . 5 * 270 /
p t y t
y y f f MPa
8093 . 6 4690 . 12 2783 . 19
p c cp
y y y mm
Summing moments of stresses in component plates:
Nmm 1915 . 146824
] 7517 . 5 * 80 . 50 * 270 / 5456 . 124 ) 2 / 8093 . 6 4690 . 12 ( * 8093 . 6 * 2
4690 . 12 * 3 / 2 270 / 7517 . 5 * 5456 . 124 * 3 / 2 [ * 17 . 1 * 270
] / ) 2 / ( 2 3 / 2 / 3 / 2 [
2 2
1
2 2

+ + +
+
+ + + +
t y t cp p cp p y t t y ns
y b f f y y y y f y f t f M
Therefore
01517 . 1 144630 / 1915 . 146824 /
test ns
M M
3. Minor Axis Bending with Stiffened Element in Compression
Given:
1. steel:
y
f = 210N/mm
2
, E = 205000Mpa
2. section: Specimen 8 in Enjiky's Experiment Group 3,
test
M =3430Nm
centerline dimensions: t = 1.60mm; b
1
= 210mm; b
2
= 105mm
3. span: L = 300mm
Required: flexural capacity using LRFD method
Solution:
For stiffened element in uniform compression:
141
2064 . 0 ) ( 5345 . 6 ) ( 5119 . 4
1
2 2
1
2
+
b
b
b
b
k
f
= 4.1888
1888 . 4 * ) 105 / 210 ( ) / (
2 2
2 1

f w
k b b k = 16.7552
) 1 ( 12
2
3

Et
D =
) 3 . 0 1 ( 12
) 60 . 1 ( * 205000
2
3

= 7.6894x10
4
t b
D k
f
w
cr
2
1
2

=
) 60 . 1 ( ) 210 (
10 6894 . 7 * 7552 . 16 *
2
4 2
x
= 180.2118MPa
cr
y
f
f
=
2118 . 180
210
=1.0795>0.673
if 673 . 0 >
/ ) / 22 . 0 1 ( =(1-0.22/1.0795)/1.0795 = 0.7376
the effective web width
1 1
b b
e
=0.7376*210 = 154.896mm
For unstiffened element under a stress gradient:
if 77 . 0 ) 7376 . 0 ( 0 < ,
2213 . 0 30 . 0
1
2141 . 30 ) 2 /(
1 2
2
2
+
e c
b b b y mm (see Figure 3)
7859 . 74 2141 . 30 105
2

c t
y b y mm
2141 . 30
c p
y y mm
5718 . 44
p t tp
y y y mm
6864 . 6 2 / 2213 . 0 * ) 2141 . 30 2141 . 30 ( ) 1 /( ) (
10
+ +
p c
y y b mm
mm 7210 . 17 7376 . 0 2213 . 0 * 2 2213 . 0 * 2 / ) 2141 . 30 2141 . 30 (
2 )] 1 /( ) [(
2
2
20
+ +
+ +
p c
y y b
Element L(mm) y from top fiber(mm) Ly(mm
2
)
Top stiffened Element 154.896 0 0
2b
10
2*6.6864 3.3432 2*22.3540
2b
20
2*17.7210 30.2141-17.7210/2=21.3536 2*378.4071
2yt 2*74.7859 30.2141+74.7859/2=67.6071 2*5056.0578
Total area sum

353.2826 2*5456.819
Compute the neutral axis: 8921 . 30
2826 . 353
819 . 5456 * 2

c
y
1079 . 74 8921 . 30 105
2

c t
y b y mm
8921 . 30
c p
y y mm
Fig.3 Stress Distribution
f10
fy
f20
ytp
yp
b10
b20
yt
yc
fy
142
8364 . 6 2 / 2213 . 0 * ) 8921 . 30 8921 . 30 ( ) 1 /( ) (
10
+ +
p c
y y b mm
mm 1187 . 18 7376 . 0 2213 . 0 * 2 2213 . 0 * 2 / ) 8921 . 30 8921 . 30 (
2 )] 1 /( ) [(
2
2
20
+ +
+ +
p c
y y b
Element L(mm) y from top fiber(mm) Ly(mm
2
)
Top stiffened Element 154.896 0 0
2b
10
2*6.8364 3.4182 2*23.3682
2b
20
2*18.1187 30.8921-18.1187/2=21.83275 2*395.5810
2yt 2*74.1079 30.8921+74.1079/2=67.9461 2*5035.3428
Total area sum

353.022 2*5454.292
Compute the neutral axis: 9006 . 30
022 . 353
292 . 5454 * 2

c
y mm, which is very close to the
result from last iteration 30.9006mm. Iteration stops here.
0994 . 74 9006 . 30 105
2

c t
y b y mm
9006 . 30
c p
y y mm
1988 . 43
p t tp
y y y mm
8383 . 6 2 / 2213 . 0 * ) 9006 . 30 9006 . 30 ( ) 1 /( ) (
10
+ +
p c
y y b mm
mm 1237 . 18 7376 . 0 2213 . 0 * 2 2213 . 0 * 2 / ) 9006 . 30 9006 . 30 (
2 )] 1 /( ) [(
2
2
20
+ +
+ +
p c
y y b
1684 . 123 9006 . 30 / 1237 . 18 * 210 /
20 20

c y
y b f f Mpa
5270 . 163 9006 . 30 / ) 8383 . 6 9006 . 30 ( * 210 / ) (
10 10

c c y
y b y f f Mpa
Summing moments of stresses in component plates:
c e y y y c y
p tp p tp y ns
ty b f f f b f f b y tb f f
b t f y y y y t f M
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2
20 20
2
)] /( 3 / ) 2 ( [ ) (
) 3 / 2 ( ] 3 / 2 ) 2 / ( 2 [
+ + + + + +
+ + +
ns
M =210*1.60*[2*43.1988*(30.9006+43.1988/2)+2/3*30.9006
2
]+123.1684*1.60*
(2/3)*18.1237
2
+(163.5270+210)*1.60*6.8383*[30.9006-6.8383+
(163.5270+2*210)*6.8383/3/(163.5270+210)]+210*154.896*1.60*30.9006
ns
M =3.5021e+006Nmm
Therefore
02 . 1 3430000 / 10 x 5021 . 3 /
6

test ns
M M
4.Major Axis Bending with Unstiffened Element in Uniform Compression
143
Given:
1. steel:
y
f =36ksi, E = 29500ksi
2. section: Specimen UP-10 in Reck's Experiment,
test
M =14.3 in-K
centerline dimensions: t = 0.0350in; b
1
= 3.978in; b
2
= 1.220in; type b) in Part 2.3)
3. span: L = 60 inch
Required: flexural capacity using LRFD method
Solution:
For unstiffened element in uniform compression:
1246 . 1 ) ( 0348 . 0
1
2
+
b
b
k
f
=1.1353
) 1 ( 12
2
3

Et
D =
) 3 . 0 1 ( 12
) 035 . 0 ( * 29500
2
3

= 0.1158
t b
D k
f
f
cr
2
2
2

=
) 0350 . 0 ( ) 220 . 1 (
1158 . 0 * 1353 . 1 *
2
2

= 24.9076ksi
cr
y
f
f
=
9076 . 24
36
=1.2022>0.673
3 . 0
2022 . 2
17 . 1
3 . 0
1
17 . 1
+ +
+

d
R =0.8313
9076 . 24 * 8313 . 0
cr d cr
f R f =20.7057
cr
y
f
f
=
7057 . 20
36
=1.3186>0.673
if 673 . 0 >
/ ) / 22 . 0 1 ( =(1-0.22/1.3186)/1.3186 = 0.6318
the effective width
2 2
b b
e
=0.6318*1.220 = 0.7708in
For Web:
if 77 . 0 0 <
30 . 0 =0.30*0.6318=0.18954
1
1
2

f
f

2
18954 . 0 * 978 . 3
) 1 (
1
1

b
b
o
=0.3770
144
6318 . 0 18954 . 0 * 2 18954 . 0
2
978 . 3
2 )
) 1 (
(
2
2
1
2
+
+

b
b
o
= 1.0685
Element L(in) y from bottom fiber(in) Ly (
2
in )
Top Flange 0.7708 3.978 3.0662
Bottom Flange 1.2200 0 0
10
b 0.3770 3.978-0.3770/2=3.7895 1.4286
20
b 1.0685 1.989+1.0685/2=2.5233 2.6961
Negative Web
Element
1.989 1.989/2=0.9945 1.9781
Sum

5.4253 9.169
Compute the netrual axis:
4253 . 5
169 . 9
10
y =1.690
2880 . 2 690 . 1 978 . 3
01 1 0
y b y
2880 . 2
690 . 1
0
01
1
2

y
y
f
f
=-0.7386
7386 . 0 1
18954 . 0 * 978 . 3
) 1 (
1
1
+

b
b
o
=0.4337in
6318 . 0 18954 . 0 * 2 18954 . 0
7386 . 1
978 . 3
2 )
) 1 (
(
2
2
1
2
+
+

b
b
o
=1.2292in
Element L(in) y from bottom fiber(in) Ly (
2
in )
Top Flange 0.7708 3.978 3.0662
Bottom Flange 1.2200 0 0
10
b 0.4337 3.978-0.4337/2=3.76115 1.6312
20
b 1.2292 1.690+1.2292/2=2.3046 2.8328
Negative Web
Element
1.690 1.690/2=0.845 1.42805
Sum

5.3437 8.9583
145
Compute the neutral axis:
3437 . 5
9583 . 8
10
y =1.6764, which is very close to the result from last
iteration 1.690. Iteration stops here.
01 1 0
y b y =3.978-1.6764=2.3016in
3016 . 2
6764 . 1
0
01
1
2

y
y
f
f
=-0.7284
7284 . 0 1
18954 . 0 * 978 . 3
) 1 (
1
1
+

b
b
o
=0.4362in
6318 . 0 18954 . 0 * 2 18954 . 0
7284 . 1
978 . 3
2 )
) 1 (
(
2
2
1
2
+
+

b
b
o
=1.2364in
For stiffened element under a stress gradient:
y
f f
1
=36ksi
36 *
3016 . 2
6764 . 1
0
01
2

y
f
y
y
f = 26.2211ksi
36 *
3016 . 2
4362 . 0 3016 . 2
0
10 0
3

y
f
y
b y
f = 29.1773ksi
3016 . 2
2364 . 1
* 36
0
20
4

y
b
f f
y
= 19.3389ksi
dist=
) 4362 . 0 3016 . 2 * 2 ( * 3
4362 . 0 * ) 4362 . 0 3016 . 2 * 3 (
) 2 ( 3
) 3 (
10 0
10 10 0

b y
b b y
=0.2257in
Summing moments of stresses in component plates:
dist)/2] ( ) ( 3 / 3 / [ * 2
10 0 10 3
2
20 4
2
01 2 2 01 2 2 0
+ + + + + + b y t b f f t b f ty f b ty f b ty f M
y e y nx
] 2 / ) 2257 . 0 4362 . 0 3016 . 2 ( * 035 . 0 * 4362 . 0 * ) 36 29.1773 (
3 / 035 . 0 * 2364 . 1 * 3389 . 19 3 / 6764 . 1 * 035 . 0 * 2211 . 26
220 . 1 * 6764 . 1 * 035 . 0 * 2211 . 26 7708 . 0 * 3016 . 2 * 035 . 0 * 36 [ * 2
2 2
+ +
+ +
+ +
nx
M
nx
M = 12.7170in-k
Therefore
146
8893 . 0 3 . 14 / 7170 . 12 /
test ns
M M
5. Flat-ended Columns:
Given:
1. steel:
y
f = 550MPa, E = 210000MPa, 3 . 0
2. section: in Ben Young's Experiment Series P36 specimen P36F3000,
test
N =24700N
8 . 36
f
B mm; 9 . 96
w
B mm; small corner radii assumed 85 . 0
i
r mm; 51 . 1 t mm;
base metal thickness 47 . 1
i
t mm
3. column length: 5 . 3000 L mm, the flat-ended bearings are designed to restrain both
major axis and minor axis rotations as well as twist rotations and warping,
x
K = 0.5;
y
K =
0.5;
t
K =0.5
Required: axial loading capacity using LRFD method
Solution:
1. calculate sectional properties of unreduced cross-section (see Figure 5)
Figure 4.
Consistent Effective Width
b1o
b2o
f4
f3
y0
y01
147
using Section 3.3.2 in Page I-31,
Flat width taken as the full centerline to centerline width element
Flat width of the web ) ( 2
i w w
r t B b + = 92.18 mm; t B b
w cw
= 95.39mm
Flat width of the flange ) (
i f f
r t B b + = 34.44 mm;
2
t
B b
f cf
= 36.045mm
mm 605 . 1 2 / + t r r
i c
Rounded corner length measured along centreline
c
r u
2

= 2.521 mm
Cross-Sectional area ) 2 2 ( u b b t A
f w i
+ + = 244.17
2
mm
Moment of inertia about x-axis:

'

+ +

+ + +
2 3
2
2
3
)
2
2
( )
4
8
( 2 )
2
( 2
12
c
w
i c i c
w
i f
w i
x
r
b
ut r t r
b
t b
b t
I

=
4 5
mm 10 427 . 3 x
Distance between the centroid and the centreline of the web (including corners)
1
]
1

+ +
c
f
c f
i
c
r u
b
r b
A
t
x )
2
1 ( 2 )
2
( 2

= 7.824 mm
Moment of inertia about y-axis:
] )
2
( )
4
8
[( 2 ] )
2
(
12
[ 2
2 3
2
2
3
2
c c c i c i c
f
c i f
f i
c i w y
r r x ut r t x
b
r t b
b t
x t b I

+ +

+ + + +
=
4
10 095 . 3 x
4
mm
St. Venant torsion constant ] 2 2 [
3
3
u b b
t
J
f w
i
+ + = 175.876
4
mm
Distance between shear center and web centerline
) 6 (
3
+

cf
cw
cf
b
b
b
m = 12.506 mm
Distance between centroid and shear center ) ( m x x
c o
+ =-20.33 mm
S.C.
xc
m
xo
bf
bcf
web
t
bcw
x
y
Bw
Figure 5 Ben Young's Cross Section
148
Warping constant

,
_

+
+

6
3 2
12
3 2
cf
cw
cf
cw
i cf cw
w
b
b
b
b
t b b
C =
7
10 007 . 5 x
6
mm
Calculate General Properties
Shear modulus
) 1 ( 2 +

E
G =
4
10 077 . 8 x MPa
Radii of gyration about the x-axis
A
I
r
x
x
= 37.466 mm
Radii of gyration about the y-axis
A
I
r
y
y
=11.258 mm
Polar radius of gyration about the shear center
2 2 2
1 o y x o
x r r r + + = 44.088 mm
2
1
1

,
_


o
o
r
x
=0.787
2. Determine the nominal axial strength in accordance with Section C4
According to Section C3.1.2:
607 . 1292
) 466 . 37 / 25 . 1500 (
210000 *
) (
2
2
2
2

x
x x
x
r
L K
E
MPa
711 . 116
) 258 . 11 / 25 . 1500 (
210000 *
) (
2
2
2
2

y
y y
y
r
L K
E
Mpa
MPa 080 . 127 )
25 . 1500
10 007 . 5 * 210000 *
876 . 175 * 80770 (
) 088 . 44 ( * 17 . 244
1
)
) (
(
1
2
7 2
2
2
2
2
01
+
+
x
L K
EC
GJ
Ar
t t
w
t

Compute the critical buckling stress:


MPa 711 . 116
1

y e
F
MPa 265 . 124
] 080 . 127 * 607 . 1292 * 787 . 0 * 4 ) 080 . 127 607 . 1292 ( 080 . 127 607 . 1292 [
787 . 0 * 2
1
] 4 ) ( [
2
1
2
2
2

+ +
+ +
t x t x t x e
F

149
MPa 711 . 116 ) , min(
2 1 e

e e
F F F
5 . 1 1708 . 2
711 . 116
550
>
e
y
c
F
f

MPa 358 . 102 550 * ]


1708 . 2 * 1708 . 2
877 . 0
[ ]
877 . 0
[
2

y
c
n
f F

Compute the effective area


e
A at the stress
n
F :
7201 . 0 3736 . 0 18 . 92 / 44 . 34 / <
w f
b b
4564 . 0 0237 . 0 ) / ( 2851 . 1
w f f
b b k
673 . 0 8054 . 0
210000
358 . 102
47 . 1 * 4564 . 0
44 . 34 * 052 . 1 052 . 1
>
E
F
t
b
k
n
i
f
f

9025 . 0 / ) / 22 . 0 1 (
1924 . 83
w we
b b mm
0821 . 31
f fe
b b mm
2
mm 086 . 221 47 . 1 * ) 521 . 2 * 2 0821 . 31 * 2 1924 . 83 ( ) 2 2 ( + + + +
i fe we e
t u b b A
N 22629 358 . 102 * 086 . 221
n e s
F A N
916 . 0 24700 / 22629 /
test sn
N N
6. Pin-ended Columns:
Given:
1. steel:
y
f = 550MPa, E = 210000Mpa, 3 . 0
2. section: in Ben Young's Experiment Series P36 specimenP36P0815,
test
N =40900N
8 . 36
f
B mm; 5 . 97
w
B mm; small corner radii assumed 85 . 0
i
r mm; 51 . 1 t mm;
base metal thickness 48 . 1
i
t mm
3. column length: 9 . 814 L mm, the pin-ended bearings are designed to allow rotations
about the minor y-axis, while restraining the major x-axis rotations as well as twist rotations
and warping,
x
K = 0.5;
y
K = 1;
t
K =0.5;
Required: axial loading capacity using LRFD method
Solution:
1. Calculations of Dimensions and Properties:
using Section 3.3.2 in Page I-31,
150
Flat width taken as the full centerline to centerline width element
Flat width of the web ) ( 2
i w w
r t B b + = 92.78 mm; t B b
w cw
= 95.99 mm
Flat width of the flange ) (
i f f
r t B b + = 34.44 mm;
2
t
B b
f cf
= 36.045 mm
mm 605 . 1
2
+
t
r r
i c
Rounded corner length measured along centreline
c
r u
2

= 2.521 mm
Cross-Sectional area ) 2 2 ( u b b t A
f w i
+ + = 246.719
2
mm
Moment of inertia about x-axis:

'

+ +

+ + +
2 3
2
2
3
)
2
2
( )
4
8
( 2 )
2
( 2
12
c
w
i c i c
w
i f
w i
x
r
b
ut r t r
b
t b
b t
I

=
4 5
mm 10 501 . 3 x
Distance between the centroid and the centreline of the web (including corners)
1
]
1

+ +
c
f
c f
i
c
r u
b
r b
A
t
x )
2
1 ( 2 )
2
( 2

= 7.796 mm
Moment of inertia about y-axis:
] )
2
( )
4
8
[( 2 ] )
2
(
12
[ 2
2 3
2
2
3
2
c c c i c i c
f
c i f
f i
c i w y
r r x ut r t x
b
r t b
b t
x t b I

+ +

+ + + +
=
4 4
mm 10 121 . 3 x
St. Venant torsion constant ] 2 2 [
3
3
u b b
t
J
f w
i
+ + = 180.138
4
mm
Shear center
) 6 (
3
+

cf
cw
cf
b
b
b
m = 12.482 mm
Distance between centroid and shear center ) ( m x x
c o
+ =-20.278 mm
Warping constant

,
_

+
+

6
3 2
12
3 2
cf
cw
cf
cw
i cf cw
w
b
b
b
b
t b b
C =
7
10 115 . 5 x
6
mm
Shear modulus
) 1 ( 2 +

E
G =
4
10 077 . 8 x MPa
Radii of gyration about the x-axis
A
I
r
x
x
= 37.670 mm
151
Radii of gyration about the y-axis
A
I
r
y
y
=11.247 mm
Polar radius of gyration about the shear center
2 2 2
1 o y x o
x r r r + + = 44.235 mm
2
1
1

,
_


o
o
r
x
=0.790
2. Determine the nominal axial strength (
no
P ) in accordance with Section C4
Compute the effective area
e
A at the yield stress
y
f :
7201 . 0 3712 . 0 78 . 92 / 44 . 34 / <
w f
b b
4533 . 0 0237 . 0 / 2851 . 1
w f f
b b k
673 . 0 861 . 1
210000
550
48 . 1 * 4533 . 0
44 . 34 * 052 . 1 052 . 1
>
E
f
t
b
k
y
i
f
f

4738 . 0 / ) / 22 . 0 1 (
mm 959 . 43
w we
b b
mm 318 . 16
f fe
b b
2
mm 823 . 120 ) 2 2 ( + +
i fe we e
t u b b A
N 65 . 66452
y e no
f A P
Compute the centroid of effective section under axial force alone:
Distance between the effective centroid and centreline of the web (including corners)
mm 939 . 3 / )]
2
( 2 ) 2 / ( 2 [
_
+ +
e c c fe c fe i a ce
A r r u b r b t x

Distance from the point of application of the load to the the centroid of the
effective cross-section:
mm 857 . 3
_ _

c a ce s s
x x e
Because the eccentricity varies along the length of the column, two thirds of the maximum
eccentricity is used
s s s
e e
_ 1
*
3
2
=2.571mm
3. Determine the nominal axial strength (
n
P ) in accordance with Section C4
MPa 835 . 17715
) 670 . 37 / 9 . 814 * 5 . 0 (
210000 *
) (
2
2
2
2

x
x x
x
r
L K
E
152
MPa 806 . 394
) 247 . 11 / 9 . 814 * 1 (
210000 *
) (
2
2
2
2

y
y y
y
r
L K
E
MPa 865 . 1352 )
) (
1 (
2
2
2
01
+
t t
w
t
L K GJ
EC
Ar
GJ

Compute the critical buckling stress:


MPa 806 . 394
1

y e
F
MPa 188 . 1330
] 865 . 1352 * 835 . 17715 * 790 . 0 * 4 ) 865 . 1352 835 . 17715 ( 865 . 1352 835 . 17715 [
790 . 0 * 2
1
] 4 ) ( [
2
1
2
2
2

+ +
+ +
t x t x t x e
F

MPa 806 . 394 ) , min(


2 1 e

e e
F F F
5 . 1 1803 . 1
806 . 394
550
<
e
y
c
F
f

MPa 009 . 307 658 . 0


2

y n
f F
c

Compute the effective area


e
A at the stress
n
F :
7201 . 0 3712 . 0 78 . 92 / 44 . 34 / <
w f
b b
4533 . 0 0237 . 0 / 2851 . 1
w f f
b b k
673 . 0 3902 . 1
210000
009 . 307
48 . 1 * 4533 . 0
44 . 34 * 052 . 1 052 . 1
>
E
f
t
b
k
n
i
f
f

6055 . 0 / ) / 22 . 0 1 (
mm 178 . 56
w we
b b
mm 853 . 20
f fe
b b
2
mm 33 . 152 ) 2 2 ( + +
i fe we e
t u b b A
N 68 . 46766
n e n
F A P
mm 9038 . 4 / )]
2
( 2 ) 2 / ( 2 [
_
+ +
e c c fe c fe i a ce
A r r u b r b t x

mm 892 . 2
_ _

c a ce m s
x x e
Because the eccentricity varies along the length of the column, two thirds of the maximum
eccentricity is used
153
m s s
e e
_ 2
*
3
2
=1.928mm
4.Determine the section moment capacity (
ny
M ) in accordance with Section C3
Compute the monosymmetry section constant about the y-axis j:
Assuming right corners
99 . 95
cw
b mm; 045 . 36
cf
b mm;
Distance between the centroid of an unreduced cross-section and the centreline of the web
mm 730 . 7
045 . 36 * 2 99 . 95
045 . 36
2
'
2
2

cf cw
cf
c
b b
b
x
mm 212 . 20 ) 482 . 12 730 . 7 ( )
99 . 95 045 . 36 * 6
045 . 36 * 3
730 . 7 (
)
6
3
' ( '
2
2
+
+
+
+
+
cw cf
cf
c o
b b
b
x x

+
A
c c cf
i cw
c c cf
i
x x b
t b
x x b
t
dA x ] ) ' ( ) ' [(
4
] ) ' ( ) ' [(
2
2 2
2
4 4 3
] 730 . 7 ) 730 . 7 045 . 36 [(
4
48 . 1 * 99 . 95
] 730 . 7 ) 730 . 7 045 . 36 [(
2
48 . 1
2 2
2
4 4 3
+

A
dA x
=3.0026x10
6
mm
5
] ) ' (
12
'
[
3
3
2
cw c i
cw c i
A
b x t
b x t
dA xy +

) 99 . 95 * 730 . 7 * 48 . 1
12
99 . 95 * 730 . 7 * 48 . 1
(
3
3
2
+

A
dA xy
=-9.0883x10
5
mm
5
Moment of inertia about y-axis ] ) '
2
(
12
[ 2 ) ' ( '
2
3
2
c
cf
i cf
cf i
c i cw y
x
b
t b
b t
x t b I + +
] ) 730 . 7
2
045 . 36
( * 48 . 1 * 045 . 36
12
045 . 36 * 48 . 1
[ * 2 ) 730 . 7 ( * 48 . 1 * 99 . 95 '
2
3
2
+ +
y
I
= 3.134x10
4
mm
4
mm 616 . 53 ) 212 . 20 ( ) 908830 3002600 (
31340 * 2
1
' ] [
' 2
1
0
2 3

+

x dA xy dA x
I
j
A A
y
Web plate in tension under bending about the minor axis
1
s
C ; 1
TF
C
154
Nmm 10 014 . 6
) ) 835 . 17715 / 865 . 1352 ( 235 . 44 616 . 53 * 1 616 . 53 ( * 835 . 17715 * 719 . 246 * 1
] ) / ( [
6
2 2
2
01
2
x
C
r j C j A C
M
TF
x t s x s
e

+
+ +


Elastic section modulus of the full unreduced section for the extreme compression fiber
834 . 1106
730 . 7 045 . 36
31340
) ' (
'

c cf
y
f
x b
I
S mm
3
Moment causing initial yield at the extreme compression fiber of the full section
5
10 0876 . 6 x f S M
y f y
Nmm
if 78 . 2 879 . 9 / >
y e
M M
the critical moment
5
10 0876 . 6 x M M
y c
Nmm
Compute the effective section modulus
c
S at a stress MPa 550 /
f c c
S M f in the
extreme compression fibre:
The web is in tension under bending about the minor y axis.
3712 . 0 78 . 92 / 44 . 34 /
w f
b b
2555 . 1 / * 1451 . 0 +
w f f
b b k =0.1451*0.3712+1.2555=1.3094
) 1 ( 12
2
3

i
Et
D =
) 3 . 0 1 ( 12
) 48 . 1 ( * 210000
2
3

=6.2342x10
4
i f
f
cr
t b
D k
f
2
2

=
) 48 . 1 ( ) 44 . 34 (
10 2342 . 6 * 3094 . 1 *
2
4 2
x
=458.949MPa
cr
c
f
f
=
949 . 458
550
=1.0947>0.859
if 859 . 0 >
( )
9 . 3
1
/ 925 . 0
c cr
f f = 883 . 0 ) 550 / 949 . 458 ( * 925 . 0
9 . 3 / 1

411 . 30 44 . 34 * 883 . 0
f fe
b b mm
793 . 234 ) 2 2 ( + +
i fe w e
t u b b A mm
2
e c c fe c fe i a ce
A r r u b r b t x / )]
2
( 2 ) 2 / ( 2 [
_

+ +
793 . 234 / )] 605 . 1 *
2
605 . 1 ( * 521 . 2 * 2 ) 2 / 411 . 30 605 . 1 ( * 411 . 30 * 2 [ * 48 . 1
_

+ +
a ce
x
=6.463 mm
] )
2
( )
4
8
[( 2 ] )
2
(
12
[ 2
2
_
3
2
2
_
3
2
_ _ c c a ce i c i a ce
fe
c i fe
fe i
a ce i w a ye
r r x ut r t x
b
r t b
b t
x t b I

+ +

+ + + +
155

a ye
I
_
22571.109 mm
4
306 . 883
) (
_
_

a ce fe c
a ye
c
x b r
I
S mm
3
5
10 858 . 4 ) ( x
S
M
S M
f
c
c ny
Nmm
5. Determine the beam-column strength
u
P according to Beam-Column interaction
equations Equation C5.2.2-1 and C5.2.2-2
Unfactored design strength 1
c
, 1
b

1
m my
C C
0 . 1
) 1 (
2

+
Ey
u
ny
s u my
n
u
P
P
M
e P C
P
P
N 10 741 . 9
) 9 . 814 * 1 (
10 121 . 3 * 210000 *
) (
4
2
4 2
2
2
x
x
L K
EI
P
y y
y
Ey

let 987 . 4
10 741 . 9
10 858 . 4
4
5

x
x
P
M
a
Ey
ny

5
5
4
5
2
10 092 . 8
68 . 46766 928 . 1 10 858 . 4
10 741 . 9
68 . 46766 * 10 858 . 4
x
x x
x
x
P e M
P
P M
b
n s ny
Ey
n ny


10
5
10 272 . 2
68 . 46766 * 10 858 . 4
x
x P M c
n ny


a
ac b b
P
u
2
4
2
1 _
+
=126146.3189 N
a
ac b b
P
u
2
4
2
2 _

=36115.562 N
0 . 1
1
+
ny
s u
no
u
M
e P
P
P
N 73 . 49162
65 . 66452 * 571 . 2 10 858 . 4
65 . 66452 * 10 858 . 4
5
5
1
3 _

+

x
x
P e M
P M
P
no s ny
no ny
u
The minimum beam-column strength N 562 . 36115
u
P
Therefore,
156
883 . 0 40900 / 562 . 36115 /
test u
N P
REFERENCE:
Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual, 1996 Edition, American Iron and Steel Institute
Teoman Pekoz(1987). Development of a Unified Approach to the Design of Cold-
Formed Steel Members
Cohen, J. M. (1987). Local Buckling Behavior of Plate Elements, Department of
Structural Engineering Report, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Mulligan, G. P. and Pekoz, T. (1984). Local Buckled Thin-Walled Columns,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 110, No. 11, 2635-2654.
Mulligan, G. P. and Pekoz, T. (1987). Local Buckling Interaction in Cold-Formed
Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 3, 604-620
El Mahi, A. ( 1985 ). Behavior of Unstiffened Elements in Bending, M. S. Thesis,
Dept. Of Mechanics of Materials, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Rhodes, J. ( 1985). Final Report on Unstiffened Elements, University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Ben Young ( 1997 ). The Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Channel
Columns, Ph. D Dissertation, Dept. Of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney,
Australia
Teoman Pekoz (1987). Development of A Unified Approach to the Design of Cold-
Formed Steel Members
Asko Talja (1990). "Design of the Buckling Resistance of Compressed HSS
Channels", Research Note 1163, Technical Research Centre of Finland
Asko Talja (1992). "Design of Cold-Formed HSS Channels for Bending and
Eccentric Compression", Research Note 1403, Technical Research Centre of Finland
Venkatakrishnan Kalyanaraman (1976). " Elastic and Inelastic Local Buckling and
Postbuckling Behavior of Unstiffened Compression Elements", Ph.D Dissertation,
Dept. Of Civil Engineering, Cornell University, USA
157
Vahik Enjily (1985). "The Inelastic Post Buckling Behavior of Cold-Formed
Sections", Ph.D Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Building and Cartography,
Oxford Polytechnic, UK
Thiam Sin Loh (1985). "Combined Axial Load and Bending in Cold-formed Steel
Members", PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Structural Engineering, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Cornell University
P. Jayabalan (1989). " Behavior of Non-Uniformly Compressed Thin Unstiffened
Elements", Ph.D Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, India Institute of
Technology, Madras
K. Srinivasa Rao (1998). " Coupled Local and Torsional-Flexural Buckling of Cold-
Formed Steel Members", Ph.D Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, India
Institute of Technology, Madras




American Iron and Steel Institute



1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 705
Washington, DC 20036


www.steel.org


R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

R
e
p
o
r
t

R
P
-
0
1
-
2